- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:02:39 -0400
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: Re: comments on issue 5.19 (classes as instances) and 4.6 (equivalentTo) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:01:39 -0700 > >From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > >Subject: Re: comments on issue 5.19 (classes as instances) and 4.6 > >(equivalentTo) > >Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:01:06 +0200 > > > >[...] > > > >> Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the approach taken in the RDF > > > model theory? > > > >You mean aside from paradoxes? > > There are no paradoxes in RDFS, and such paradoxes that have arisen > in DAML+OWL layering are due to inappropriate layering strategies, > not the RDFS model theory. Agreed, but these inappropriate layering strategies are still on the table. > Please stop implying that there is > something paradoxical about nonwellfoundedness; that is a > foundational issue which was resolved about 15 years ago. There is a > relative consistency proof for NWFST against ZF. Agreed. I misspoke in my message. The problems occur when the RDF vision, by which I mean KBs are finite collections of n-triples. All finite collection of n-triples are KBs. Every resource in a KB denotes an element of the domain of discourse. Every n-triple in a KB requires the presence of a relationship in an interpretretation is applied to formalisms with sufficient expressive power. > Pat peter
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 17:02:48 UTC