Re: The Peter paradox isn't.

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: The Peter paradox isn't.
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:40:08 -0600

[...]

> >The summary of all this is that if you want to be a same-syntax extension
> >of the RDF model theory and you have
> >a) rdf:type as a property;
> >b) defined classes, like DAML+OIL restrictions;
> >c) some sort of complement or negation; and
> >d) self reference

> Before I invest a lot of time in reading through the rest of this, 
> could you clarify what you mean here by 'self-reference'? I ask 
> because in any sense of that term that I know of, neither RDF nor 
> DAML is self-referential, and previous discussion on this thread has 
> confused self-reference with nonwellfoundedness.

[...]

I guess that I was not clear with this.  By self-reference, I only mean
that a restriction can point back to itself.

peter

PS:  Any suggestions for a better name for this?

Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 20:19:40 UTC