Re: The Peter paradox isn't.

 "Jeremy Carroll" wrote:

>
> Pat:
> > > >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
> >
>
> I had wondered whether changing (a) and not having rdf:type as a property
> would be the simplest fix.

I am not sure what the implications of "changing (a)" are, but rdf:type has
a central role in RDF 1, specifically for the typedNode production. There is
much software which depends on this, including software that traverses
rdf:type arcs as part of the inferencing process.

The current RDF work is not intended to 'break' current software.

>
> It seems like a very minor change to RDF and one that I reckon those of us
> in both groups would be able to get passed the rest of RDF Core without
too
> much difficulty.
>

I am already concerned that RDF datatyping is moving away from rdf:type.

If we are writing a new language, perhaps RDF 2, and it fixes problems in
RDF 1, that would be great. Let's call it that. Put the new language in a
new namespace (RDF2) so that current software won't be confused. That is
what namespaces are for.

Jonathan