- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:04:09 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Jeremy:
>> We found so
>> i.e. your given statement is an inconsistency we think
>> at least we found so using
>> {{?I => {?X a owl:Nothing}} = ?I} => {?I log:inconsistentWith owl:}.
>> and so anything follows
>
> but then in particular we have
> ?I => {?X a owl:Nothing}
that formula was intended to express the
classical negation of ?I
> and so ?I holds, and we have a proof !?
we found that ~?I owl:sameAs ?I is inconsistent
(This is intended to encode the liar's paradox, the `=' though is
interesting)
Right and I think that in OWL Full we can use owl:sameAs
(which is that =) between sets of statements ?!
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 17 November 2003 05:08:19 UTC