At 13:05 15/04/04 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >I actually found a problem with it when working out my > >AMS itinerary: cwm doesn't substitute into the datatype > >part of a literal. > >you mean you can't write an n3 rule that looks like :foo^^?x > >This is a problem with using cwm (admittedly, since that seems to be your >tool of preference, and given our focus on real world tools, that makes it a >potentially serious problem). Maybe I have mis-characterised it. But if you >use a longhand version with rdf:datatype as a property does the problem go >away? FWIW, I don't think either of my query processors would (currently) handle this. (It seems like a reason that interpretation properties for datatypes might have been a better way to go, but that's now water under the bridge.) #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#ContactReceived on Thursday, 15 April 2004 16:49:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:20:44 GMT