- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:06:52 +0100
- To: "Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-cwm-talk@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Adrian Walker wrote: > one can take declarativeness over RDF much further than N3 Sorry, I didn't understand why your system is more declarative than N3 (really, than CWM/N3), even after reading the PDF. It seemed to use only very simple rules and some existential quantification, a subset of CWM/N3's capabilities. But it did remind me about designing CWM/N3 builtins. I'm not sure about the details, but I remember a discussion between Tim and Dan about how to make a property look and behave as declaratively as possible. The builtins are, to a large extent, just syntactic sugar for python calls, so there was always the tendency to just use the python names and behaviours for things which are, of course, under the imperative mindset. So I always kinda wondered why not just use the familiar names. No real point to this anecdote though—you just reminded me of it. -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 19:07:36 UTC