- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:29:24 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "\"\"Peter F. \"Patel-Schneider <pfps\"" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
>> Hi: >> >> Dieter and I have put together the promised longer version of the layering >> document. It is available at >> >> http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/semantic-web/layering.html > >"Given that the most attractive layering solution is not possible ..." > >Hmm... at the ftf you didn't conclude that it wasn't possible; >only that it wasn't straightforward. I don't see anything >in this paper that wasn't discussed at the meeting, so >I don't see how you come to the stronger conclusion. > >Why doesn't section 5 discuss the possibilities for resolving >the paradox? An axiom of foundations, intuitionistic logic, >etc. The 4 possibilities discussed at the ftf >meeting seem to have dwindled to 3. also that example at the end of 4.2 contains a cycle with nothing but blank nodes and that is indeed paradoxical, but it can be avoided if we stick with the idea of having blank nodes ``by-value'' and not ``by-reference'' (after all, they have no identifier, just maybe a label, but that is *not* an identifier) -- Jos
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 18:30:04 UTC