- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 03:20:10 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 11:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >[...] >> I definitely agree with you that RDF reification is cumbersome. But that >> doesn't make N3 formulae significantly better than RDF reification. In >> fact, the (only) meaning given for N3 is via an underspecified >>``mapping into >> the RDF data model'', so somehow N3 formulae have to be mapped into RDF. > >My favorite N3 spec explains it in terms of KIF (i.e. >first order logic plus quoting). > > * a formal design for RDF/N3 context/scopes > Dan Connolly to www-rdf-logic, Thu, Sep 06 2001 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Sep/0004.html > >cited from the "Logic primitives" section of >http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3 > >With running code to convert any N3 expression to KIF. > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/KIFSink.py > > >That reminds me... I'd like to see the same-syntax paradox >written out in KIF. Maybe I could do it myself, but >if you beat me to it, Peter (or anybody else), I'd appreciate it. I would like to see this, too. I think it will make it vividly clear why it is not a paradox. One can write the definition of the Russell class and the liar sentence in KIF, and the result is not paradoxical in either case. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 10:57:33 UTC