- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 20:35:58 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[...] > Anyway... that's my idea. I meant to write > it down in RDF/n3, but I haven't gotten > around to it. Maybe Jos will beat me to it. ;-) Oh Dan, you have no idea how such sentences are triggering something in me (even so hard that I just forgot to put the lights of my car on while I was picking up my daughter at the trainstation, and it was very dark...) Suppose we can use your proposed lists as ( first-item-of-list / rest-of-list ) and also ?v for u.q. variables then we could write in N3 ( ) :sameBagAs ( ) . and { ( ?a ?c ) :remove ?x . ?b :sameBagAs ?x } log:implies { ( ?a / ?b ) :sameBagAs ?c } . which is using predicate "remove" which is like ( item list ) :remove list-with-removed-item such that ( ?a ( ?a / ?c ) ) :remove ?c . and { ( ?a ?b ) :remove ?c } log:implies { ( ?a ( ?x / ?b ) ) :remove ( ?x / ?c ) } . that may seem dark, but it actually works when we add those implications to http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3 i.e. ( :a :a :b ) :sameBagAs ( :b :a :a ) . -- Jos De Roo, AGFA htt://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2002 14:36:38 UTC