- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:17:12 -0400
- To: timbl@w3.org
- Cc: public-cwm-talk@w3.org
Here's a test (motivated by a current discussion in RIF-WG):
<a> <b> <c>.
<a> <b> <d>.
{ <a> <b> ?x } => { _:x <b_inferred> ?x. }.
_:x <b_given> <c>.
_:x <b_given> <d>.
The (relevant) output I get from cwm is:
[ <b_given> <c>, <d> ].
[ <b_inferred> <c> ].
[ <b_inferred> <d> ].
which makes it clear that the "_:x" inside the rule conclusion does not
name the same thing as the other "_:x"'s in the file do. In other
words, b-nodes in rule conclusions get an implicit existential
quantifier inserted. They don't just use the implicit one around the
file.
Two questions: (1) is that as it should be?
(2) how strongly do you feel that way? (would it
be reasonable to do it the other way, perhaps?)
-- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 00:18:11 UTC