W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: "asserted triple" weasle-words must go [was: best way to write triples?]

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:59:05 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020419095641.04333650@joy.songbird.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:46 PM 4/18/02 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > The whole point is to have triples but not
> > have them asserted. The point is not to make them vanish, just to
> > have no *semantic* import.
>
>Maybe it's clear to everybody else how that works.
>Sorry, I don't get it.

If we had a syntax for expressing dark triples, then test cases would, I 
think, be easy enough as entailment tests.  Let { s p o } be a dark triple, 
then:

     s1 p1 o1 .

entails

     s1 p1 o1 .
     { s2 p2 o2 } .

Does that help?

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 04:56:32 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:33 EDT