- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 01:29:35 +0200
- To: jonathan@openhealth.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > > > > > Does your use of nested contexts and unasserted triples support the need > > > for this mechanism in OWL, as a solution to Peter's most recent paradox? > > > (this is turning into the Patel-Schneider paradox -hopefully finite- > > > set) > > > > > > I am reading this as yes, but want to confirm. > > > > I would say yes > > but what is that -hopefully finite- set? > > > > Just a little joke, an _infinite_ set of paradoxes would be a bad thing I > imagine -- it would probably take an infinite amount of time to resolve : -)) What I also wanted to say is that when a blank node is having properties attached to it so that it is uniquely identified (e.g. an owl:UnambiguousProperty or owl:first & owl:rest properties) then one _can_ build a functional term for that blank node so that one can do unification of functional terms. If such attached properties are acyclic (as is the case when using N3's []) then their assertions are also OK. -- Jos
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 19:30:13 UTC