- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:54:20 +0200
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> I should add my apologies to Pat's for having missed your message > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0200.html > > I, too, like it. me too > I comment on whether <false> is a useful RDF graph, extending the analysis. > > I think this message ends up very much in agreement ... (see end of > message). I agree with your <false> analysis Jeremy As an aside... I'm still wondering about what is giving us a license to *get* a list (term) from it's description (a thing is not the same as a description of the thing) I have thought that is was dereferencing, but that is wrong I think now (so no use/mention bug) It's also not the fact that first/rest are unique properties, at least I don't see that. The best I can think of is that it is Mike's TINV mapping of first/rest triples into a functional term cons(f,r) For the moment we (still) keep the first/rest triples asserted in our engine (as a matter of testing stuff) but I'm feeling myself in a darkness -- Jos
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 09:56:38 UTC