- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:13:47 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 06:48 16/12/03 -0800, pat hayes wrote: >>Rule: lg1 >>If E contains: uuu aaa lll . >>Then: uuu aaa _:nnn. _:nnn foo:sameAs lll . >>(where _:nnn is allocated as described for rule 'lg'.) >> >>Rule: gl1 >>If E contains: uuu bbb _:nnn . _:nnn foo:sameAs lll . >>Then: uuu bbb lll . >> >>(The 'foo:sameAs' property is intended to appeal to the owl:sameAs >>property, without getting entangled with the owl semantic conditions on >>owl:sameAs. >>I.e., a foo:sameAs b does not necessarily mean that I(a) == (b), just that >> a p c . <=> b p c . >>and >> d q a . <=> d q b . >>for all syntactically allowable c, d, p, q.) > >Right, exactly. That is what is needed in an implementation: to treat the >literal and its allocated bnode *in exactly the same way* wherever >syntactically possible. In fact, the best way to handle this would be to >actually use the literal in subject position when applying the rules, if >your implementation can handle that, and just ignore rules lg and gl. Or, >maybe, apply rule lg to everything, *including the proposed conclusion* >which would be closest to standard computational-logic practice and would >obviously avoid the need for that silly rule gl; in effect it would just >eliminate literals altogether in favor of blank nodes. Thanks. I could use the literal-as-subject approach, but I wanted (for no particular reason other than a sense of tidiness) to be able to check proofs that were based as closely as I could manage on the RDF formal spec. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 07:19:35 UTC