- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 20:51:53 -0500
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- CC: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, timbl@w3.org
Aaron Swartz wrote:
>
> Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > { [ is log:resolvesTo of <rdfc25May.n3> ] log:includes
> > [ is log:resolvesTo of <,xx.n3> ] } log:implies { :test1 a :Success
> > }.
>
> Isn't the requirement here a bit more stringent? log:includes, at least from
> the name, implies a sort of subClass semantics -- that one includes the
> triples of the other, but may include other triples. Shouldn't we insure
> that a processor _only_ generates the correct triples and nothing more?
Yes, we should test for X includes Y and Y includes X.
> Or
> am I misunderstanding log:includes?
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2001 21:52:08 UTC