- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 22:50:32 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
[...] > It's quite accpetable to have a literal refered to only in > using it, i.e. there is no conceivable situation that I can > think of that would merit the anon node solution, other > than to satisfy some theoretical bug. :Sean :says (s:U0042 s:U0075 s:U0067 s:U0067 s:U0065 s:U0072) . [[[ 21:33:45 <sandro> I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. Is there an object somewhere which is the number 10, and another which is the numebr 16, and how do you show how they relate to the string "10" and the two bases it might be in? 21:34:59 <sbp> ah... I guess to show relations, they would need to be modelled that way. Hmm... 21:36:23 <sbp> _:a rdf:value "10"; :base :Decimal . _:b rdf:value "10"; :value :Sixteen . "10" :lexRepresentationOf _:a , _:b . 21:36:46 <sbp> :lexRepresentationOf daml:inverseOf rdf:value . 21:38:04 <sbp> Aw, man... 21:38:40 <sbp> * sbp begins to hate RDF 21:40:28 <sandro> * sandro laughs ]]] - http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-10-05.txt Cheers, -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 17:50:56 UTC