W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2002

Re: CWM Question

From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:40:11 -0700
Message-ID: <3D6270EB.D04AB158@prescod.net>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Thanks for the answers, Sean!

"Sean B. Palmer" wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> Because the triple ":a :someotherprop :b" does not appear directly in your
> document. You can infer it from the data you have using the following
> rule:-
> 
>    this log:forAll :p, :q, :x, :z .
>    { :x :p :z . :q = :p } => { :x :q :z } .
> 
> but CWM does not have any built in rules that it always applies.

Then of what value is the "=" operator and daml:equivalentTo predicate
property?

> Note also that since you're using ":a" as the subject of the outputString
> triple each time, with the above rule, you could get any combination of
> "someprop", "someotherprop", "somepropsomeotherprop", or
> "someotherpropsomeprop". As it is, testing with CWM v1.103 gives me
> "someotherpropsomeprop".

Sorry, I'm too much of a newbie to understand this point. 

{:a :someprop :b} log:implies {:a log:outputString "someprop\n"}.
{:a :someotherprop :b} log:implies {:a log:outputString
"someotherprop\n"}.

If both lines are true wouldn't I be guaranteed to get both
outputStrings? I understand that the order might by random but why do
you say it would be reasonable for CWM to ignore one of the
log:outputString arcs?
-- 
"When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim 
suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith 
-- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk."
Congressman James Traficant.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 12:42:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:55 GMT