- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:51:36 +0000
- To: public-cwm-talk@w3.org
I notice (from the change log) that CWM's collection (list) handling has
changed, and that it seems to be difficult to perform some "simple"
inferences over lists.
Below is some test code that I assumed would do some simple inferences on
lists of values, but which doesn't do any of what I'd expect.
I wonder if I'm missing something here? Am I the only person who's trying
to use RDF collections (lists) in this way?
#g
--
[[
# Cwm-list-test.n3
#
# Command line used:
# C:\Dev\W3C\Swap1144\cwm.py --n3=tl --think Cwm-list-test.n3
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix rdft: <http://id.ninebynine.org/2003/rdfext/rdft#> .
@prefix wd: <http://id.ninebynine.org/wip/2003/wlanDevices/> .
@prefix wp: <http://id.ninebynine.org/wip/2003/wlanPolicy/> .
@prefix wc: <http://id.ninebynine.org/wip/2003/wlanConnection/> .
@prefix : <#> .
wp:WlanPolicy a wp:ConnectionPolicy ;
wp:allowedConnections
( [ wc:devid "1" ; wc:devid "9" ]
[ wc:devid "2" ; wc:devid "8" ]
[ wc:devid "2" ; wc:devid "9" ]
) .
:foo :bar ( "1" "2" "3" ) .
# Simple rule to annotate a list link element
{ ?r rdf:first ?h . }
=>
{ ?r a :List } .
# Auxiliary rules to flatten members of a collection
{ ?r rdf:first ?h ;
rdf:rest ?t . }
=>
{ ?r rdft:includes ?h ;
rdft:more ?t . } .
{ ?r rdft:more ?m .
?m rdf:first ?h ;
rdf:rest ?t . }
=>
{ ?r rdft:includes ?h ;
rdft:more ?t . } .
]]
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 14:52:09 UTC