- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:31:17 -0400
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-archive+n3bugs@w3.org>
It would make things easier -- but i am not building in coercions like that at the moment as I want to keep the meaning of things very clear. Same with not allowing logLuri to take a relative. Good while we are trying to get URI terminology right to be as precise as possible. Tim PS: (The list output bug is tricky ... that will take some getting back into the code) On Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 10:44 AM, Sean B. Palmer wrote: >> ??? strings don't have semantics. Only formulas do. >> >> I think there's a parseN3 built-in somewhere. > > Argh, you're right: log:n3ExprFor. It's a silly error that I shouldn't > have > made, but it does make me wonder whether semantics and n3ExprFor > couldn't > be unified. The domain would be a union of Document and Literal, and > AFAIK > it would be consistent, even if it does confuse people as to the > difference > between a document and its log:content. > > -- > Kindest Regards, > Sean B. Palmer > @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> . > :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 22:31:20 UTC