- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:35:04 +0100
- To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy: > >In daml+oil this is said: > > > ><rdf:Description rdf:about="#John"> > > <rdf:type> > > <daml:class> > > <daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > > <daml:class rdf:ID="Employee"/> > > <daml:class rdf:ID="Student"/> > > <daml:intersectionOf> > > </daml:class> > > </rdf:type> > ></rdf:Description> > > > >If we leave the daml class expression: > > > > > ><rdf:RDF> > > <daml:class> > > <daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > > <daml:class rdf:ID="Employee"/> > > <daml:class rdf:ID="Student"/> > > <daml:intersectionOf> > > </daml:class> > ></rdf:RDF> > > > >as unasserted DanC: > What do you mean by that? I expected some syntactic way to tell > which triples are asserted and which aren't. I don't > see any such clues. Help? I have been assuming minimalist syntax for darkness. i.e. We have dark graphs. So a graph with dark triples is serialized as two graphs, one dark and one light. This can be done in two separate files, or as two rdf:RDF elements in the same file. The former would require a one sentence change to the RDF specs, and was, at the f2f, apparently acceptable to the advocates of the dark triple approach (much to my surprise). I note a small bug with the example above in that the dark class expression is unnamed. I need to assign it a gensym in order to refer to it from the asserted graph. DanC: > It's still not to the point where I can write test > cases to crystalize the issue. You and me both. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 04:36:34 UTC