- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:28:51 +0100
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> On the contrary: I consider it essential that the > abstract syntax has a distinguished representation > for anonymous nodes, and that the interpretation > of these anonymous nodes in the abstract syntax > works like existentially quantified variables > in FOPL. > > I've given test cases and running code (n-triples2kif.pl) > to support this position; I believe Pat H and > somebody else agreed with me. based on what we have testcased at http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/#Problem I completely agree with you and I really wonder how else we could model/infer http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/tpoint-result.n3 or http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/tpoint-all.n3 (which are not yet equivalent, but that's another challenge) > > By way of a reminder, the key question was: > > > > 1. Are anonymous resources allowed in the abstract graph syntax? > > Absolutely, yes. yep -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 06:29:28 UTC