Re: N3 vs. XML

> > [drew]
> > > The point is that I would like to "quantify in" to the
> > > pieces of an implication.

> [jos deroo]
> > fine, see http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Anonymous.html and
> > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Examples.html for examples

[drew]
> Okay, I've looked, and I find (at the first of your links) things
> like:
>
>       <#premise> = {  <#p> daml:inverse <#q> } .
>       <#conclusion> = { <#q> daml:inverse <#p> } .
>       { <#premise> log:implies <#conclusion> } forall <#p>, <#q> .
>
> without much explanation.

the = is shorthand for daml:equivalentTo so we could say
  {{:p daml:inverseOf :q} log:implies
{:q daml:inverseOf :p}} log:forAll :p, :q.

> But this is where we came in.  I asked how braces worked.  Do they
> provide a shorthand for reification, do they relax the rule of "triple
> flattening"*, or (your possibility) do they indicate quoting eveything
> inside them as a string?

I think it's like how 'subexpressions' work, or how would you call
the premis, conclusion, rule (or head, body, clause in Prolog)? So I
would say option 2 (using log:quote to instruct an RDF/XML parser, but
an RDF/N3 parser could just 'recurse' into those 'contexts' (at least
that's how we did in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/Euler.java))

[...]

> *("Triple flattening" is short for "the requirement to assert every
> triple in a structure of triples.")

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/