- 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>
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 http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/proposal.axiom.rdf We can now ask euler such things as http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/proposal.lemma.rdf to get http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/proposal.proof.rdf > 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. OK > 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