W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

Re: A use case for anon nodes - action from telecon

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:58:47 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Message-Id: <41256AA1.0036C559.00@ambem5.eps.agfa.be>
[kind of selfreply...]
> ??? could it be that [ :p :o] (as one token)
> is an existental but that we *could* assert
> forall _:s such that _:s :p :o. ???
> (we actually do use the former and then
> query with some kind of univeral/template
> (which can contain the 'normal' existentials))

we actually see that
  {{:s [ rdfs:subpropertyOf :p] :o} log:implies {:s :p :o}}
    a log:Truth; log:forAll :s, :p, :o.
gives the same "cwm -think" result as
  {{:z rdfs:subPropertyOf :p. :s :z :o} log:implies {:s :p :o}}
    a log:Truth; log:forAll :s, :p, :o, :z.
but *not* the same result as
  {{:z rdfs:subPropertyOf :p. :s :z :o} log:implies {:s :p :o}}
    a log:Truth; log:forAll :s, :p, :o; log:forSome :z.

it could/should be similar for the case of rdfcore 'facts'
(the things behind log:implies)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2001 06:11:03 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:44 EDT