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 19:51:51 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFDE776B10.9AC1B869-ONC1256B38.0067851C@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
>
> But what is the meaning of the entire statement then?

true
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2002 13:52:27 GMT

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