- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:37:08 -0400
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "Giles Hogben" <giles.hogben@jrc.it>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Seth Russell wrote: > From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> > > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Statement1"> > > <ex:Veracity rdf:ID="Statement1">False</ex:Veracity> > > </rdf:Description> > > Seems to me that there is a paradox encoded right in the styntax. Does the > uri <baseUri:Statement1> identify a node or a arc in the graph? What do > the parsers return for this animal? > Whether this is or is not a paradox is not a syntactic issue ... there is no such thing as a "syntactic paradox" that I am aware of ... but this statement was constructed to demonstrate a paradox _that would ensue if the statement <#Statement1> ex:Veracity "False". actually meant _false_ (in the semantic sense). It doesn't as far as RDF is concerned and so there is no paradox as far as RDF is concerned. As for the second part of your question: in terms of the _old RDF_ i.e. the current REC, a parser would emit (using the new N-triples/N3 syntax): (first the reification quad) <#Statement1> rdf:type rdf:Statement . <#Statement1> rdf:subject <#Statement1> . <#Statement1> rdf:predicate ex:Veracity . <#Statement1> rdf:object "False" . and the actual statement <#Statement1> ex:Veracity "False" . now suppose the "ex:Veracity" _actually meant_ RDF asserted, then the following statement would be entailed: <#Statement1> ex:Veracity "True" . wherein would lie the problem _if this were the case but it isn't_. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 14:42:51 UTC