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 14:27:13 -0500
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020105142713D.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Subject: Re: Peter's example
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:51:51 +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?
> 
> true
> 

Not helpful.
If this is its meaning then what is Euler doing?

I'm trying hard to determine what the meaning of owl-rules.n3.  If it has
no meaning beyond its status as a triple with a non-logical predicate then
what is Euler doing?  If it has a meaning then what is it? 

peter
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2002 14:27:55 GMT

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