Re: regrets telecon on Tuesday

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
> Jos,
> 
> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>> [...]  Additionally, people might get confused between frames and
>> named argument uni terms [I have already seen this in our working group].
>> (For those who are still confused: named argument uniterms are merely 
>> a complicated way of writing terms; they have nothing to do whatsoever 
>> with frames)
> 
> That's interesting... Can you be more specific, please?
> 
> I was under the impression, indeed, that some, and maybe most, people in 
> the WG understood, from the discussion and examples, that named argument 
> uniterms were related to frames (e.g. Harold justified them by the need 
> for anonymous frames).
> 
> Can you explain in some more details why they are not? With an example, 
> maybe?

in a named uniterm, each (named) argument needs to be present, exactly 
once, or, respectively the named uniterms

person( firstname -> "Christian", lastname -> "de Sainte Marie")

and

person( firstname -> "Christian")

have nothing to do with each other... the only thing which you gain is 
that order of arguments is irrelevant, i.e. the first one could also be 
written:

person( lastname -> "de Sainte Marie", firstname -> "Christian")


whereas, on the contrary in frames, any slot can appear 0 or several 
times, i.e.

person1[firstname -> "Christian", lastname -> "de Sainte Marie"]

and

person1[firstname -> "Christian"] AND person1[lastname -> "de Sainte Marie"]

say the exactly same thing, i.e. mutually entail each other.

and even writing


person1[firstname -> "Christian", lastname -> "de Sainte Marie", 
affiliation -> "ILOG"]

or even

person1[firstname -> "Christian", lastname -> "de Sainte Marie", 
affiliation -> "ILOG", affiliation -> "W3C"]

would both imply the formeer two.

That's I guess what Jos wanted to say...

Axel











-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/

rdf:Resource owl:differentFrom xsd:anyURI .