- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:37:06 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Sorry, what do you mean by "extended n-triples representation"? Things are complicated enough trying to follow the various proposals and idioms thereof with a *fixed* definition of n-triples. If we're going to allow extensions to n-triples, there are too many things allowed to vary, and too few things fixed. Besides, if we weren't constrained by n-triples as they are now, there are all kinds of neat things we could do... I want to see how things are going to actually be written in the notation we actually have. --Frank Brian McBride wrote: > Ok Jeremy, > > As I understand what you are suggesting here, is that under TDL, the > rule could be rewritten to get the desired effect, i.e. reflecting the > "literal is a pair" directly in an extended n-triples represention: > > <mary> <haircolor> (_, "red") . > > and > > ?x <haircolor> (_, "red") => ?x <rdf:type> <redhead> . > > one can conclude: > > ?x <rdf:type> <redhead> . > > DanC - Do you buy this one. Rewrite the rule and you get what you want. > > Brian > -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 16:33:10 UTC