- From: guido naudts <guido.naudts@just.fgov.be>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 06:44:34 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Excuse me for entering this discussion at a late point in time. What I'm mostly doing as an N3 user: take a prolog-like expression: p(a(x), c(z,y)) then I translate this to N3 as: [:p [:a :x]; [:c :z,:y]]. In prolog the n-arity is syntactically expressed by the parentheses; in N3 by the clams ([]). The semantic interpretation (at least by my program RDFEngine but I believe also by Euler and CWM)) is really the same as in prolog (well if by semantic interpretation is understood the answers that are obtained given certain queries). The queries have to be in the same format eg [:p [:a ?x]]. When the blank nodes are given a name this amounts to the same solutions as proposed earlier in the discussion. This is in fact what I'm doing in my program: I give each blank node a name with format :T$$$x. In a query however those blank nodes are considered to be existential variables. Blank nodes are handy when there are a lot of instances eg [a :payment; :payment_nr "y"; :value "5"; :to_account "xxx"]. In prolog this would probably be: payment(nr, (value,5), (to_account, xxx)) but I think the N3 version is better because payment is a class and not a property. Naudts Guido Informaticus Tel. 02/542.76.01 Fax: 02/538.01.80 E-mail: guido.naudts@just.fgov.be
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 10:17:59 UTC