W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: UNSAID : issues in interpretting a query

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:02:04 -0500
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1094824924.6086.414.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 12:49, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
[...]
> There is nothing fundamenatlly new here - its not an RDF-ism as far as I can see 
> and I'd like input from experts.  Are there other ways to think of UNSAID?

I think log:notIncludes is another way. It's a property that relates
two formulas/graphs. You can think of it as rdf_mt:notEntails


We have a bit of tutorial documentation...

 Implementing defaults and log:notIncludes
 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Reach

Here's a quick example from one of the tests,
 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/includes/t4.n3

:thesis :is { <#theSky> <#is> <#blue> } .

@forAll :x.

{ :thesis :is :x. :x log:notIncludes {<#theSky> <#is> <#green>} }
log:implies {
:test4 a :success } .


There are a few other test in
 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/includes/

though not all of them seem to be included
in the manifest... hmm...
 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/regression.n3

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 14:01:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT