- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:38:38 +0200
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...]
> >So I'm currently against rules such as:
> > { :rule9o1 . ?L owl:item ?x } log:implies { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] }
.
> >from
> > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules
>
> I don't follow. That rule doesn't have an existential in the
> conclusion, does it? Both the variables in the conclusion are also in
> the antecedent. You seem to want to rule out any *terms* that refer
> to classes in the conclusion, not just existentials. That seems
> capricious to me. And the answer is, no, there isn't any logical name
> for that.
trying to make up my mind...
the places where we would like to find "just" triples are in
1/ queries
-> the triples in a graph which can be dereferenced
2/ rules
-> the triples inside a N3 { } embedding
3/ function *terms*
-> the triples composing
:value :functor ( rdf-list-items ) .
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 15:39:18 UTC