Recursive rules: is this a bug in Cwm?

• From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
• Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:41:26 +0000
• To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
• Cc: www-archive+n3bugs@w3.org
• Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021219214053.043c41d0@127.0.0.1>

[I sent this to RDF-IG, then DanC mentioned this route for Cwm reports - #g]

I've been experimenting with "recursive" rules in Cwm, and get some 
unexpected results:

   http://www.ninebynine.org/SWAD-E/Intro.html#CwmRulesExperiments

My test file is:
   http://www.ninebynine.org/SWAD-E/Scenario-HomeNetwork/PlayRules.n3

Which essentially reduces to this test case:

[[
{
   ?A rule:append ( [ daml:first ?H ; daml:rest ?T ] ?T1 ) .
}
log:implies
{
   ?A daml:first ?H ;
      daml:rest  [ rule:append ( ?T ?T1 ) ] .
} .

:A1 rule:append ( ( "L11" "L12" "L13" ) "L14" ) .
]]

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Saturday, 21 December 2002 05:05:14 UTC