Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 13:37 +0100, jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote: >> while testing log:includes and log:notIncludes >> cwm found that >> >> {} log:notIncludes {_:x a rdfs:Resource}. >> >> which is OK I think >> (euler is not OK for that but I am fixing) >> >> both cwm and euler found that >> >> {} log:includes {(1 1) math:sum 2}. >> >> which is not like simple entailment.. > > Yes... we've wondered now and again whether log:includes should > know about built-ins or not. After I saw SimonR's design[14Dec] > it occurred to me that the built-ins could be regarded as > graphs of their own, so that > > {} log:includes {(1 1) math:sum 2 } > > would not be the case but > > (math:kb {}).log:conjunction log:includes {(1 1) math:sum 2} > > would be true. very well, I'll try to do like that :) that math:kb is an excellent name which I was looking for since many weeks to use in proof explanation steps a la ... {-1.9082339805374957 math:lessThan -1.25} e:evidence math:kb} => { {:meas47 a :LLDAlarm} e:evidence <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/2002/10/medicad/op/lldmP.n3#_122>}. > [14Dec] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0469.html > >> > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 15:57:14 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:01 GMT