- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 14:27:13 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com Subject: Re: Peter's example Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 19:51:51 +0100 > > > > 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 > Not helpful. If this is its meaning then what is Euler doing? I'm trying hard to determine what the meaning of owl-rules.n3. If it has no meaning beyond its status as a triple with a non-logical predicate then what is Euler doing? If it has a meaning then what is it? peter
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2002 14:27:55 UTC