- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:37:13 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: geoff@sover.net, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[...] >If RDF wanted to do one or the other, i.e., > store only ground facts (triples) >or > store encodings of more-complex information interpreted using > standardized extensions, >then I would not have a problem. However, the two are, in my mind, >completely incompatible. I must say (but I better should go to my bed) that I think otherwise. If we write (in N3) [ :a :b]. we actually understand that as the statement [ :a :b] null null. (null in the sense of empty (implemented as a Java null)) so that means that we actually DON'T assert statement _:anonid :a :b. (that _ stands for an anonymous namespace prefix) but are still able to compute unifiers for resolution. Also writing :s :p [ :q :o]. is asserting statement :s :p _:anonid. but is NOT asserting statement _:anonid :q :o. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 1 June 2001 20:37:39 UTC