W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2003

Re: cwm/n3 and naming blank nodes? (calendar rules)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 03 Jan 2003 00:19:34 -0600
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM, www-rdf-calendar@w3.org
Message-Id: <1041574774.19704.174.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

Norm Walsh asked, back on 1Dec...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Dec/0002.html

about rules for repeating events, some with
end markers and some without.

I completely missed that message, as I only catch
up with www-rdf-interest occasionally, but meanwhile, in
www-rdf-calendar, I wrote some rules that, I think,
answer Norm's question.

futureEvents.n3: an excercise in processing recurring events
Dan Connolly (Thu, Dec 19 2002)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-calendar/2002Dec/0022.html

Applying the lessons from futureEvents to Norm's birthday
case, we get:

this log:forAll :p, :s, :o, :t, :u, :l, :k, :m, :E.

{ :p a ab:Contact;
    p:born :o } log:implies { :p :birthEvent [ a db:Appointment ;
                                   db:begin-date :o ;
                                   db:repeat [
                                      rdf:type db:Repeat ;
                                      db:frequency "1";
                                      db:type "Yearly" ] ] } .

{ :p a ab:Contact;
    p:born :o;
    p:died :s;
    :birthEvent :E } log:implies { :E db:end :s }.


There's something unsatisfying about this style of rules...
it feels procedural -- I start to think about
"creating" a db:Appointment and "modifying" it --
while writing rules is supposed to be declarative.

I'm not really modifying anything; this is all monotonic.
But feels wierd.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 01:19:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT