- From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:19:09 -0800
- To: <danny@isacat.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Danny Ayers: > >> I was seeking for ways to express this rather basic fact using bare > >RDF(S)/DAML syntax. > > > >There's no way of expressing this in RDF, in RDFS or in DAML; it requires > >the ability to use variables. Variables are not part of any of the three > >representations. > > I'm not entirely convinced - for one thing, expressing the relationship > isn't the same as resolving it, so perhaps something like equivalentTo might > do. I think this might be an excellent idea! Can you come up with a syntax example? :-) > For another, if it is viewed as a transformation rather than a > procedure, no variables are required (XSLT, anyone?). You are right! This was exactly the reason I started to think about it: Working on one of my stylesheets I realized that I can easily do it, but could not come with RDF source code. > If I'm shot down on > these points, then there's always TimBL's cwm and log:implies. Sounds interesting, it would be very interesting to see an N3 expression for this: property "C" = property "A" of some subject which is an object of property "B" Is this a close guess: { :x A :y. :y B :z} log:implies { :x C :z } ? How would this look in RDF/XML representation? Thanks, --Nikita.
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 09:15:58 UTC