Re: existential variables

The actual syntax is @forAll and @forSome (for several years now,  
though cwm accepts the old form).

The
There is an explanation of the semantics
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/N3Logic

An excerpt:

Any formula,  (including the root formula), may have a set of  
universal variables.  These are indicated by  @forall  declarations.   
The scope of the @forAll is outside the scope of any @forSome.

If both universal and existential quantification are specified for  
the same context, then the scope of the universal quantification is  
outside the scope of the existentials:

{ @forAll <#h>. @forSome <#g>. <#g> <#loves> <#h> }.
means

∀<#h>  ( ∃<#g>  ((  <#g> <#loves> <#h> ))


Does this help?

Tim BL

On Oct 4, 2005, at 7:05, naudts guido wrote:

>
> Hallo,
> Does anyone know of an N3 example where log:forSome is
> used and where the query is not possible with
> log:forAll?
> I ask this question because I'm trying to understand
> what the precise semantics are of log:forSome.
> Greetings,
>
> Guido Naudts
> Lic. zoologie
> Ir.informatica
> Adviseur Department of Justice
> Secretarisdreef 5
> 2288 Bouwel
> Belgium
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>