- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:26:56 +0100
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: aswartz@upclink.com, Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk, timbl@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[...]
> The interesting bit is to see which format is backed by a
> "do these graphs match?" code first. Preferably two independent
> implementations. cwm already does it
> for N3, modulo the _:name syntax (and modulo cwm bugs ;-)
well, this is one of the best approaches I ever heard!
> Jos, I gather your code can almost do the comparison too.
yes, we work on the almost and have a simple case running
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/animal.n3 as given
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/animal-simple.n3 as query
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/animal-result.n3 as result
the idea is
given the 'n3 normal format'
proof the 'n3 simple format'
(using a resolution algorithm)
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/
btw the http://www.w3.org/2000/11/mr76/rdfc25May.n3 testcase is
also working now (and we also see DAML coming in quickly)
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2001 08:29:00 UTC