- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 09:41:59 -0400
- To: "Wagner, G.R." <G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl>
- Cc: <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, "Drew McDermott" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
On May 28, 2004, at 5:56 AM, Wagner, G.R. wrote: > >> 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? There *should* be a good way. In point of fact, there isn't (at the moment). > Wouldn't something along the lines below, with a suitably > extended semantics, work? [snip] It would, but it's well, icky :) I'd rather not have to reify, personally. If we're talking standards, much will depend on whether the W3C as a body gives up the same syntax requirment on semantic web languages. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 09:42:39 UTC