W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Alternative RDF Syntaxes (n3, ...)

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:45:31 +0100
To: sean@mysterylights.com
Cc: sandro@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF54CDF880.E2548589-ON41256A50.005EAD90@bayer-ag.com>


> > My code uses the interpretation that { <a> <b> <c>.
> > <d> <e> <f>. } denotes a set which has an enumeration
> > which is a DAML list of two elements which are
> > rdf:Statements, as given.
>
> I interpret:-
>
>    { :a :b :c . :x :y :z }
>
> as
>
>    [ a n3:Context;
>       rdf:_1 [ a rdf:Statement;
>         rdf:subject :a;
>         rdf:predicate :b;
>         rdf:object :c ];
>       rdf:_2 [ a rdf:Statement;
>         rdf:subject :x;
>         rdf:predicate :y;
>         rdf:object :z ] ] .
>
> But that's just me :-) Whaddya mean by a set which has two
> ennumerations? So a oneOf nodelist?
>
> [ daml:oneOf ([ a rdf:Statement;
>         rdf:subject :a;
>         rdf:predicate :b;
>         rdf:object :c ]
>     [ a rdf:Statement;
>         rdf:subject :x;
>         rdf:predicate :y;
>         rdf:object :z ]) ] .
>
> ???

Why not just as defined in http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html#context
(logical conjunction of statements)???
(that's at least how we did it in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 12:45:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:37 UTC