> ??? strings don't have semantics. Only formulas do. > > I think there's a parseN3 built-in somewhere. Argh, you're right: log:n3ExprFor. It's a silly error that I shouldn't have made, but it does make me wonder whether semantics and n3ExprFor couldn't be unified. The domain would be a union of Document and Literal, and AFAIK it would be consistent, even if it does confuse people as to the difference between a document and its log:content. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> . :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 10:44:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 08:08:44 GMT