- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:40:11 -0700
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Thanks for the answers, Sean! "Sean B. Palmer" wrote: > > ... > > Because the triple ":a :someotherprop :b" does not appear directly in your > document. You can infer it from the data you have using the following > rule:- > > this log:forAll :p, :q, :x, :z . > { :x :p :z . :q = :p } => { :x :q :z } . > > but CWM does not have any built in rules that it always applies. Then of what value is the "=" operator and daml:equivalentTo predicate property? > Note also that since you're using ":a" as the subject of the outputString > triple each time, with the above rule, you could get any combination of > "someprop", "someotherprop", "somepropsomeotherprop", or > "someotherpropsomeprop". As it is, testing with CWM v1.103 gives me > "someotherpropsomeprop". Sorry, I'm too much of a newbie to understand this point. {:a :someprop :b} log:implies {:a log:outputString "someprop\n"}. {:a :someotherprop :b} log:implies {:a log:outputString "someotherprop\n"}. If both lines are true wouldn't I be guaranteed to get both outputStrings? I understand that the order might by random but why do you say it would be reasonable for CWM to ignore one of the log:outputString arcs? -- "When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith -- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk." Congressman James Traficant.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 12:42:59 UTC