- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:51:51 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > Oops, swapped lhs with rhs... > > what I said was about N3 rules lhs, but you asked about their rhs > > well, that is Prolog clauses's lhs, which is the consequence > > and that is also a set of triples (actually one 'normal' triple > > but there could be further triples describing bNodes) > > that set of triples is also *not* asserted, only the statement > > premis log:implies conclusion . > > is asserted > > But what is the meaning of the entire statement then? true
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2002 13:52:27 UTC