W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Peter's example

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 18:19:46 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF1DAB9A85.497FDCBE-ONC1256B38.005F2A1A@bayer-ag.com>
Oops, swapped lhs with rhs...
what I said was about N3 rules lhs, but you asked about their rhs
well, that is Prolog clauses's lhs, which is the consequence
and that is also a set of triples (actually one 'normal' triple
but there could be further triples describing bNodes)
that set of triples is also *not* asserted, only the statement
  premis log:implies conclusion .
is asserted

> > > A couple of points with respect to the owl rules and euler.
> > >
> > > 1/ Where is the formal specification of what Euler is doing?  I'm trying
to
> > >    figure it out by example, but a formal spec is needed.
> >
> > that is indeed very needed, but for the moment we don't have one...
>
> The reason I ask is that you have what appear to be constructors in the
> right hand side of rule, and I was wondering what their meaning was.

well, this is what would be in Prolog clauses's left hand side
(of course, that set of triples is constructed, but is
in no sense asserted, just serving its purpose as hypothesis)

TimBL has a nice primer at http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html

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

PS I haven't found time to tackle your other interesting examples
   (and your mid-term exam (I'm feeling some exam-fever ;-))
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2002 12:20:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT