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

Re: Peter's example

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 12:30:40 -0500
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020105123040K.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Subject: Re: Peter's example
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 18:03:23 +0100

> 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

But what is the meaning of the entire statement then?

Received on Saturday, 5 January 2002 12:31:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:41 UTC