- From: Wagner, G.R. <G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:56:03 +0200
- To: "Drew McDermott" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
> Is the absence of the actual triples bothering you? If so, you're out
> of luck, because there's really no good way to put them in.
Drew,
why should there be no good way of expressing RDF triples more
directly in a rule language?
Wouldn't something along the lines below, with a suitably
extended semantics, work?
-----------
<swrl:Variable rdf:ID="x1"/>
<swrl:Variable rdf:ID="x2"/>
<swrl:Variable rdf:ID="x3"/>
<ruleml:Imp>
<ruleml:body rdf:parseType="Collection">
<swrl:rdfTriple>
<rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x1" />
<rdf:predicate rdf:resource="⪚hasParent"/>
<rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x2" />
</swrl:rdfTriple>
<swrl:rdfTriple>
<rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x2" />
<rdf:predicate rdf:resource="⪚hasBrother"/>
<rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x3" />
</swrl:rdfTriple>
</ruleml:body>
<ruleml:head rdf:parseType="Collection">
<swrl:rdfTriple>
<rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x1" />
<rdf:predicate rdf:resource="⪚hasUncle"/>
<rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x3" />
</swrl:rdfTriple>
</ruleml:head>
</ruleml:Imp>
----------
Gerd Wagner
http://is.tm.tue.nl/staff/gwagner
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 05:56:36 UTC