- From: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:31:21 +0100
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Drew McDermott wrote: > > Following down the pointers provided by Jos de Roo, I am beginning to > understand N3 a lot better --- and RDF a bit worse. The key > innovation of N3 is *contexts*, indicated by braces. To quote from > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html --- > > Let's call a set of RDF statements a context. In a context, > > The statements are all independent, in that you can remove any > of the statements and the rest are still true. They may not make sense though - what about collections? If you remove the rdf:type property then the collection isn't valid RDF. If you remove the rdf:_2 property leaving only _1 and _3 then I guess the collection isn't valid. So the triples are not all independent. This is a problem of RDF in general, not N3 though. > The order of the > statements does not in fact matter. There is no such thing as > the same statement occuring twice any more than you can be a > person twice. Regards, David Allsopp. -- /d{def}def/u{dup}d[0 -185 u 0 300 u]concat/q 5e-3 d/m{mul}d/z{A u m B u m}d/r{rlineto}d/X -2 q 1{d/Y -2 q 2{d/A 0 d/B 0 d 64 -1 1{/f exch d/B A/A z sub X add d B 2 m m Y add d z add 4 gt{exit}if/f 64 d}for f 64 div setgray X Y moveto 0 q neg u 0 0 q u 0 r r r r fill/Y}for/X}for showpage
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 05:32:25 UTC