- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:07:14 -0500
- To: <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jos,
> > > >
> > > > good point, I've added
> > > > { ?L owl:item ?x } log:implies { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] } .
> > >
> > > How would one write the above in RDF?
>
> we can surely look to the premis { _:L owl:item _:x } as an RDF graph
> where the bnodes of that graph (luckily) become universally quantified
> (reaching to conclusion scope) therefore we write ?L instead of _:L
> the premis statements are *not* asserted
> we can also look to { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] } as an RDF graph :c, where
> [ owl:oneOf ?L ] is like a Skolem functional term replacement of a bnode
> also the conclusion graph is *not* asserted
> :p log:implies :c is an RDF statement that *is* asserted
This is precisely my point. The current RDF makes it rather cumbersome to
represent an _unasserted_ graph. An attempt to translate that into actual
RDF would expose this. Again, if we are to use RDF, we had better use RDF as
it actually exits, and see if it works.
I want to ensure that our syntax will be usable.
Jonathan
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 21:27:55 UTC