- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:35:11 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Yes, I agree with you, that though it would in practice
be simpler to say
"1".os:argv^log:uri.log:semantics
rather than
"1".os:argv.os:baseRelative^log:uri.log:semantics
it is best to keep things crisp at the moment, so people
are clean in their thinking.
Tim
On Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 12:07 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> reviewing recent changes, I see in
> the log:uri built-in:
>
>
> + Note that relative URIs can be OK as the whole process
> + has a base, which may be irrelevant.
>
> That's taken care of elsewhere in the code, no?
> i.e. a base URI is constructed on input, and
> then subtracted out on output.
>
> If I just write
> this log:forAll :X, :Y, :TXT.
> :something rdfs:label "../foo".
> { :X rdfs:label :TXT.
> :Y log:uri :TXT } log:implies { ... }
>
> in an N3 document, that shouldn't bind :Y,
> should it? the ../foo label for something
> could come from a different file. strings
> don't carry their base URI around with them.
>
> I guess I should write a test. But
> this seems plain to me.
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 22:35:13 UTC