W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2000

Re: Nodes and Arcs 1989-1999: WWW history and RDF (revisited

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:43:36 +0200
To: " - *connolly@w3.org" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: " - *www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0006800031997673000002L032*@MHS>
On september 28 2000 Dan Connolly wrote:
> This is an interesting data set. I spent some time noodling
> on it too. I took a different approach to transcribing
> the figure in RDF: I tried to represent exactly what's
> in the picture, no more, and no less:
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/08/proposal43/proposal.rdf
> revision 1.1 date: 2000/08/08 13:44:41

It's good to have such examples! Also that syntax is well done!
Yesterday afternoon I wrote a small piece of XSLT at
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfpm.xsl which is importing
your rdfp.xsl but producing rdf:Statements and keeping them
after such transformations.
The result of that transformation for that example is at
We can now ask euler such things as
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/proposal.lemma.rdf to get

> It might be interesting to annotate the proposal and
> relate its nodes to nodes like
> http://www.w3.org/People/all#timbl%40w3.org , but
> I took an approach of "this is what the figure says"
> and kept "this is what I know about things in
> the figure" out of it.


> Excercise for the reader #1: separate out
> the post-hoc knowledge in [2] and merge it,
> by machine, with the original knowledge in [1].

To have post-hoc knowledge merged, I would do an extra
assert of those post-hoc statements and then I could
ask more conjunctions to be proofed ...

I'm first looking for a kind of inverse transformation to
go from our statement syntax to your well done syntax ...

Jos De Roo of AGFA
Received on Monday, 2 October 2000 04:44:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:25 UTC