Some hair splitting again on the editorial side. In 2.8, RDF Collection, it simply says that (1 ?x 3) is an alternative for _:b0 rdf:first 1 . _:b0 rdf:rest _:b1 . _:b1 rdf:first ?x . _:b1 rdf:rest _:b2 . _:b2 rdf:first 3 . _:b2 rdf:rest rdf:nil . It may be worth adding (or reformulating the text) that a triple pattern: :a :b (1 ?x 3). is then *replaced* by the triple: :a :b _:b0. where _:b0 is the one above (ie, the (1 ?x 3) is not mechanically replaced by the stuff above, it would be syntactically incorrect because it would lead to a duplicated full stop...). It may be obvious but I think it is worth making it clear. Ivan -- Ivan Herman W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413 1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153; URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/Received on Monday, 22 August 2005 07:32:18 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:21 UTC