- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:44:20 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, <www-archive+n3bugs@w3.org>
> ??? 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 UTC