- 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