- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 00:48:58 +0100
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
""" On 5 March 2001 DanC wrote """ > > The other idiom is somewhat more traditional, making use of the list > syntax-sugar in n3, where (a b) denotes the same thing > as [ daml:first a; daml:rest [ daml:first b; daml:rest daml:nil ]]. > Using that, we can write "the pair 3,4 has sum 7: as > (3 4) :sum 7. That notation is indeed very useful. What about <> log:forAll :x. [ daml:first :a; daml:rest :x]. ? If we would write (:a :x) we get <> log:forAll :x. [ daml:first :a; daml:rest [ daml:first :x; daml:rest daml:nil ]]. We happen to use that quite often (for difference lists etc.) The Prolog notation for that would be [a|x] (and your example would be [a,b]) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2001 18:49:24 UTC