- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:38:23 +0100
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: mdean@bbn.com, boley@informatik.uni-kl.de, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> The gedcom example got me looking around the Euler
> stuff again, and it reminded me of something I find odd there...
> the use of statements that seem to "return" values, ala
> functional terms; e.g.
> | {<#x> :in {<#x> :list <#b>}} log:forAll <#b>, <#x>.
> -- http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/lists.axiom.n3
> It seems that {<#x> :list <#b>} is being used as a term, as if :list
> is a 2-place function that returns a list. That doesn't really fit
> in RDF does it? RDF only has predicates, not functions, no?
{<#x> :list <#b>} is a context-URI of something which happens to be
another in-line described graph with it's own associations.
So we don't have an interpretation mapping for generic :list verbs
other than generic association ...
Is that actually true what I'm saying? (I think I have some fever ...)
The rest is of course OK:
- model the formula in a graph (parameter properties etc.)
- use generic daml lists
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2001 07:18:28 UTC