eulermoz-developers Mailing List for EulerMoz

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

http://sosw2.home.pl/atmlse.php?jljm=jljm
http://frssnowplow.com/pmngbl.php?mowu=mowu
http://theprofessor.in/pmngbl.php?pext=pext
http://rentinmakati.com/wp-content/themes/tigopedia-reloaded/getgs.html?jkc=kn.nck&cn=kk.kknl&kkyj=fpau
http://ccatunisie.com/index----3tq.php
Hello Naudts
Try this:
At the url bar (were you write http://www.some.url.com) you type 
*about:config*
then you type at the Filter bar *dom.max_script_run_time
*because js is a client side script you run (as you already know) in a 
sandbox, this is another restriction to avoid DOS attacks.
The variable is in seconds and the default value is 5.
Hope this help you. We must say despite this variable, if mozilla code 
thinks is in a loop it will try to break anyway.

Cheers
Antonio

naudts guido wrote:

>Hallo, 
>I want to signal two problems I have with firefox and
>javascript programming. Any solutions are welcome:
>1) running in a loop is something with happens
>frequently when testing inference programs. Is there
>any possibility to interrupt the execution of the
>javascript?
>2) Some of my tests cause the message:
>"A script is slowing down your application etc..." to
>appear, though there are no erros in this script. Is
>there a possibility of supressing this message from
>appearing? 
>Greetings, Guido
>
>
>Guido Naudts
>Lic. zoologie
>Ir.informatica
>Adviseur Department of Justice
>Secretarisdreef 5
>2288 Bouwel 
>Belgium
>
>
>
>
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
>http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
>Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
>Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
>_______________________________________________
>Eulermoz-developers mailing list
>Eul...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eulermoz-developers
>  
>

Hallo, 
I want to signal two problems I have with firefox and
javascript programming. Any solutions are welcome:
1) running in a loop is something with happens
frequently when testing inference programs. Is there
any possibility to interrupt the execution of the
javascript?
2) Some of my tests cause the message:
"A script is slowing down your application etc..." to
appear, though there are no erros in this script. Is
there a possibility of supressing this message from
appearing? 
Greetings, Guido

Guido Naudts
Lic. zoologie
Ir.informatica
Adviseur Department of Justice
Secretarisdreef 5
2288 Bouwel 
Belgium

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 

Hello all.

Awesome man, this work is a really awesome.
I agree with Jos you did an impresive work.
And we find really interesting your proposal.

We got same error than Jos, any way we'll get on this code and try to help.

By the way we'll be next moth at CeBIT, trying to get some partners. ;)

Cheers

Antonio.

Hi, Guido

Excellent! It works great while running from
file:///c:/emcvs/eulermoz/rdftest/testinf.xul

I've updated the copy of project files at
http://eulermoz.sourceforge.net/eulermoz/

There's probably uri dereferencing problem when I try
http://eulermoz.sourceforge.net/eulermoz/rdftest/testinf.xul
the "execute testcase" then gives

url of document = ulermoz.sourceforge.net\eulermoz\rdftest\testcases\
files = proctest3.axioms.n3,proctest3.query.n3
readAFile exception: [Exception... "Component returned failure code: 
0x80520001 (NS_ERROR_FILE_UNRECOGNIZED_PATH) [nsILocalFile.initWithPath]" 
nsresult: "0x80520001 (NS_ERROR_FILE_UNRECOGNIZED_PATH)"  location: "JS 
frame :: http://eulermoz.sourceforge.net/eulermoz/rdftest/interface.js :: 
readAFile :: line 888"  data: no] 
...

Anyhow, you did impressive work!

regards,
jos

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

naudts guido <nau...@ya...>
Sent by: eul...@li...
25/02/2005 09:34

        To:     admin_eulermoz <eul...@li...>, cwm 
<pub...@w3...>, eulermoz_dev 
<eul...@li...>
        cc:     (bcc: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER)
        Subject:        [Eulermoz-developers] proposal

Hallo,
I've made a proposal for introducing procedures into
logic programming using Notation3 as an example.
The proposal is in attachment.
My goal is to make logic programming more user
friendly and to counter the combinatorial explosion. 
A demo can be found on:
http://eulermoz.sourceforge.net/eulermoz/rdftest/
Greetings,Guido

=====
Guido Naudts
Lic. zoologie
Ir.informatica
Adviseur Department of Justice
Secretarisdreef 5
2288 Bouwel 
Belgium

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo A proposal for the use of procedures in logic programming using Notation 3 

      Author: Guido Naudts E-mail:nau...@ya...

      The proposal intends to introduce procedures with variable 
replacement in logic
       programming while at the same time enhancing the efficiency of 
inferencing 
       and the modularity of the programming.

      Syntax

          The namespace proc: used is defined as:
          @prefix proc: <proctest#>.

          Syntax of procedure declaration:

          <myproc> proc:variables (?x1 ?x2 ... ?xn);
               proc:proc {a_tripleset}; proc:query {a_tripleset}.

          Syntax of procedure call:

          <myproc> proc:call (?a ?b ... ?q).

          The intention is that the proc:call variables list is 
substituted in sequence for the
          proc:variables list in the procedure declaration. Then the query 
is used together with the 
          initial substitution for inferencing with the tripleset defined 
after proc:proc.
          The result (there can be more than one) is a list of 
substitutions or a failure (could be 
          indicated by an empty list).
          The examples will clarify the intended result.
          This definition is such that as well backward as forward 
reasoning can be used. 
          This could be indicated by a parameter eg proc:method 
"backward".
          The proc:query could be omitted but only with forward reasoning; 
this is why I did not select
          this.

     Examples:

         1)

         Procedure:

         :cube proc:variables (?a ?b); 
            proc:proc { {(?a ?a) math:product ?b1} => {[:result ?b1]}};
            proc:query {[:result ?b]}.

         Procedure call:

         # ?z should become "16".
         :cube proc:call ("4" ?z).

         2)

         Procedure:

         # calculate ax + b
         :line proc:variables (?a ?b ?x ?z);
            proc:proc {
                {(?a ?x) math:product _:y.
                (_:y ?b) math:sum ?z1.} => {[:result ?z1]}};
            proc:query {[:result ?z]}.

         Procedure call:

         # following should return "13" for ?z.
         :line proc:call ("2" "3" "5" ?z).

         In a rule (example, not implemented):

         {[:displacement ?b].:line proc:call ("2" "3" ?b ?z). ?z 
math:greaterThan "20".} =>
             {[:alert "The maximum value has been reached."]}. 

          3)An example with a recurrent call

          Procedure:

          # calculate n! res must be "1" when called
          :factorial proc:variables (?n ?res);
          proc:proc {
             { ?n math:greaterThan "1".
              (?n "-1") math:sum ?y.
              :factorial proc:call (?y ?z).
              (?z ?n) math:product ?res} 
              => {[:result ?res]}.
              {?n math:equalTo "1"} => {[:result "1"] }};
          proc:query {[:result ?res]}. 

          Procedure call:

          # following should return 24 = 4! for ?result.
          :factorial proc:call ("4" ?result).

         Advantages:

         * inferencing on small sets of data and rules
         * procedures with variable replacement
         * modularity
         * ease of use
         * still logical programming (neverwhere any order (sequence) of 
triples)
         * together with proc:semantics a library of modules containing
           many procedures can be made.

         Caveat 
         The procedure variables must be global variables within the 
procedure, but
         unknown outside the procedure. If two rules within the same 
procedure use the same variable
         the name of that variable should not become different in the two 
rules because
         of variable renumbering. I use the variable prefix "_:" for that.

         Feasability 

         A demonstration of the above three testcases can be found on:
         eulermoz.sourceforge.net/eulermoz/rdftest/
         An explanation of the program is found in mozengine.html.
         Double click on testInf.xul and then select testcases proctest, 
proctest2 and proctest3.

         Correctness 

         The procedure call is really a subinferencing process with 
exactly the same characteristics as 
         the main process (same definition of input, same definition of 
output). In fact the same modules 
         are used (JsEngine.js and Forward.js) so the logic 
characteristics are identical. 

Hallo,
I've made a proposal for introducing procedures into
logic programming using Notation3 as an example.
The proposal is in attachment.
My goal is to make logic programming more user
friendly and to counter the combinatorial explosion. 
A demo can be found on:
http://eulermoz.sourceforge.net/eulermoz/rdftest/
Greetings,Guido

=====
Guido Naudts
Lic. zoologie
Ir.informatica
Adviseur Department of Justice
Secretarisdreef 5
2288 Bouwel 
Belgium

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 
Hallo Guido,
Nice to read you again.
Great, we are still working in other part of our platform.
We want to show some in Mach, at CeBIT.

As soon we test this new parser we'll tell you.

Greetings Antonio

naudts guido wrote:

>Hallo,
>I've added a directory "rdftest" to eulermoz.
>New features are:
>a parser N3EParser.js and a forward reasoning engine:
>Forward.js. The forward reasoner was added in order to
>be able to implement log:Conclusion.
>Some explanations are in mozengine.html.
>Greetings, Guido.
>
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>Guido Naudts
>Lic. zoologie
>Ir.informatica
>Attach=E9 Department of Justice
>Secretarisdreef 5
>2288 Bouwel=20
>Belgium
>
>
>
>
>	=09
>__________________________________=20
>Do you Yahoo!?=20
>All your favorites on one personal page =96 Try My Yahoo!
>http://my.yahoo.com=20
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
>Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
>by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
>Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
>_______________________________________________
>Eulermoz-developers mailing list
>Eul...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eulermoz-developers
> =20
>

Hallo,
I've added a directory "rdftest" to eulermoz.
New features are:
a parser N3EParser.js and a forward reasoning engine:
Forward.js. The forward reasoner was added in order to
be able to implement log:Conclusion.
Some explanations are in mozengine.html.
Greetings, Guido.

=====
Guido Naudts
Lic. zoologie
Ir.informatica
Attaché Department of Justice
Secretarisdreef 5
2288 Bouwel 
Belgium

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page  Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com 

Hallo Naudts

Great .

We now have a pretty busy time,  we're working on n3 and eulermoz, but 
tests are tedious and some bugs are difficult to catch.
Any way we hope to have some stable release, this project is really 
important for us.

Cheers

naudts guido wrote:

>Hallo everybody, 
>I put a new revision of Jsengine.js on the site. 
>I added a more complex test case namely the gedcom
>example from Jos De Roo. I replaced my own
>anti-looping code with that from Jos because it is
>eleganter and, as I presume, also faster.
>My first trials indicate that response time is good
>for an interpreter. 
>Next things to do:
>* make further tests with the gedcom example
>* implement some optimizations (response time can be
>doubled at least).
>
>I added bad log entries with my tortoise client; does
>anybody know how to take them away?
>
>Cheers, Guido. 
>
>
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
>www.yahoo.com 
> 
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
>Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
>LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click
>_______________________________________________
>Eulermoz-developers mailing list
>Eul...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eulermoz-developers
>  
>

Hallo everybody, 
I put a new revision of Jsengine.js on the site. 
I added a more complex test case namely the gedcom
example from Jos De Roo. I replaced my own
anti-looping code with that from Jos because it is
eleganter and, as I presume, also faster.
My first trials indicate that response time is good
for an interpreter. 
Next things to do:
* make further tests with the gedcom example
* implement some optimizations (response time can be
doubled at least).

I added bad log entries with my tortoise client; does
anybody know how to take them away?

Cheers, Guido. 

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com 

Oops.. forgot this one..

the interpretation of P =3D> C is
"C is provable"
the interpretation of P is
"P is provable" (but P could be
expressed as A =3D> P)

--=20
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

naudts guido <naudts=5Fv...@ya...>
Sent by: eul...@li...
20/10/2004 13:24

=20
        To:     ant...@pt..., eulermoz developers=20
<eul...@li...>
        cc:     (bcc: Jos De=5FRoo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER)
        Subject:        Re: [Eulermoz-developers] We have a doubt

Hallo,
I want to add something concerning "embedded rules".
E.g.
{{:a :b :c}=3D>{:d :e :f}} =3D> {:g :h :i}.
In Lambda-Prolog these rules are treated as follows:
the system adds {:a :b :c} to the axiom list as a
temporary axiom. Then the system tries to proof {:d :e
:f} i.e. this triple becomes a query(goal). If {:d :e
:f} is proved then {:g :h :i} is considered being
proved also ( =3D having value true). The temporary
axiom {:a :b :c} is deleted from the axioms list.
CWM apparently does not do this.
I did not implement this in RDFEngine because I do not
consider it to be very usefull. It is however 'valid'
N3. Jos uses this format for his proof formats.
I don't know what interpretation Euler gives to the
rule mentioned higher.
Greetings, Guido.
--- "antonio.lopez" <ant...@pt...> wrote:

> Hello all.
>
> Sorry Jos last two messages were meant to be sent to
> the list, it wasn't
> private at all :(
> I re-send them just to keep track.
>
> 1=BA)    The question about how parser should
> interpret this N3
> expression, what  the set of triples generated by
> the parser should be.
> Whether this triples are just :s :p :o
> or  {} implies parser has to reify them.
>
> 2=BA)    Yes , we were not sure but it looked like.
> But as we tell you before our test cases will be
> yours and this is taken
> from :
>
>
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/eulersharp/2004/02swap/testCases/gedc=
om-relations.n3?rev=3D1.1&view=3Dauto
>
>
>
> line 75.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide
> on ITManagersJournal
> Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you
> think of them. Give us
> Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates!
> Click to find out more
>
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
> Eulermoz-developers mailing list
> Eul...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eulermoz-developers
>

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out=20
more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
Eulermoz-developers mailing list
Eul...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eulermoz-developers

Hallo,
I want to come back on this issue. In RDFEngine:
:person1 /= :person2. is true when :person1 and
:person2 are different URI's.
However, in OWL, 
:person1 owl:differentFrom :person2.
is not necessarily true when :person1 and :person2 are
different URI's.
This is because OWL has a 'No unique names
assumption':
one 'object' can be designated by two different URI's.
So in order to make
:person1 owl:differentFrom :person2.
true in OWL an extra declaration is needed:
[a owl:AllDifferent;
owl:distinctMembers(:person1 :person2)].
declaring that :person1 and :person2 represent two
distinct entities.
So, de facto, my '/=' needs in OWL not one triple but
three triples. What's more the parsing has to be
different. As these three triples are interrelated but
can be wherever in your source code, this information
must be remembered in a datastructure to be integrated
after parsing.
What should be used instead is
log:notEqualTo
as defined in:
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/CwmBuiltins
because this just means non equality of uri's.

Greetings, Guido
--- Alfred Döblin <alf...@ya...> wrote:

> Háló,
> 
> > With OWL this becomes:
> > :person1 owl:differentFrom :person2.
> 
> I think that is a far better approach; be it
> standard
> or not, I think we should stick to the commonly
> accepted N3 syntax as much as possible, specially in
> those cases in which there exist more than
> reasonable
> alternatives to express a certain concept.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alfred
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
>
___________________________________________________________
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 100MB Speicher
> kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide
> on ITManagersJournal
> Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you
> think of them. Give us
> Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates!
> Click to find out more
>
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
> _______________________________________________
> Eulermoz-developers mailing list
> Eul...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eulermoz-developers
> 

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

Hallo,
I want to add something concerning "embedded rules".
E.g.
{{:a :b :c}=>{:d :e :f}} => {:g :h :i}.
In Lambda-Prolog these rules are treated as follows:
the system adds {:a :b :c} to the axiom list as a
temporary axiom. Then the system tries to proof {:d :e
:f} i.e. this triple becomes a query(goal). If {:d :e
:f} is proved then {:g :h :i} is considered being
proved also ( = having value true). The temporary
axiom {:a :b :c} is deleted from the axioms list.
CWM apparently does not do this.
I did not implement this in RDFEngine because I do not
consider it to be very usefull. It is however 'valid'
N3. Jos uses this format for his proof formats.
I don't know what interpretation Euler gives to the
rule mentioned higher. 
Greetings, Guido.
--- "antonio.lopez" <ant...@pt...> wrote:

> Hello all.
> 
> Sorry Jos last two messages were meant to be sent to
> the list, it wasn't 
> private at all :(
> I re-send them just to keep track.
> 
> 1º)    The question about how parser should
> interpret this N3 
> expression, what  the set of triples generated by
> the parser should be.
> Whether this triples are just :s :p :o
> or  {} implies parser has to reify them.
> 
> 2º)    Yes , we were not sure but it looked like.
> But as we tell you before our test cases will be
> yours and this is taken 
> from :
>     
>
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/eulersharp/2004/02swap/testCases/gedcom-relations.n3?rev=1.1&view=auto
> 
> 
> 
> line 75.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide
> on ITManagersJournal
> Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you
> think of them. Give us
> Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates!
> Click to find out more
>
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
> _______________________________________________
> Eulermoz-developers mailing list
> Eul...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eulermoz-developers
> 

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

Hallo,
I do agree. I want to remark that in RDFEngine however
I do some experiments; I stated in the explanation
that I want to be compatible with CWM (CWM sources
should work) but that I do adde xperiments of my own. 
But, as said, I do agree that for Mozilla it is better
to stick to commonly accepted syntax.
Greetings, Guido.
--- Alfred Döblin <alf...@ya...> wrote:

> Háló,
> 
> > With OWL this becomes:
> > :person1 owl:differentFrom :person2.
> 
> I think that is a far better approach; be it
> standard
> or not, I think we should stick to the commonly
> accepted N3 syntax as much as possible, specially in
> those cases in which there exist more than
> reasonable
> alternatives to express a certain concept.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alfred
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
>
___________________________________________________________
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 100MB Speicher
> kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide
> on ITManagersJournal
> Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you
> think of them. Give us
> Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates!
> Click to find out more
>
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
> _______________________________________________
> Eulermoz-developers mailing list
> Eul...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eulermoz-developers
> 

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

> Hello all.
>
> Sorry Jos last two messages were meant to be sent to the list, it wasn't
> private at all :(
> I re-send them just to keep track.
>
> 1=BA)    The question about how parser should interpret this N3
> expression, what  the set of triples generated by the parser should be.
> Whether this triples are just :s :p :o
> or  {} implies parser has to reify them.

when we get an rdf graph containing

{{{:Greta gc:childIn :dp.
:Jos gc:childIn :dp.
:Greta ont:differentIndividualFrom :Jos} log:implies
{:Greta gc:sibling :Jos}} log:implies
{:Jos gc:sibling :Greta}.

we actually have just 1 triple
  {subject=5Fgraph} log:implies {object=5Fgraph}.
for which we create an instance of C# class

public class Euler {
  internal Euler subj =3D null;                   // RDF subject
  internal String verb =3D null;                  // RDF predicate as=20
absoluteized verb
  internal Euler obj =3D null;                    // RDF object
  internal String cverb =3D null;                 // compact verb
  ...
  internal Euler near =3D null;                   // to construct a=20
conjunction
  ...

we then do the same recursively for subj and obj graphs

we don't have externalized reification

> 2=BA)    Yes , we were not sure but it looked like.
> But as we tell you before our test cases will be yours and this is taken
> from :
>
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/eulersharp/2004/02swap/testCases/ge=
dcom-relations.n3?rev=3D1.1&view=3Dauto
>
>
> line 75.

OK, is clarified by Guido
# rule added for N3Engine - G.Naudts
and with rationale in
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread=5Fid=3D5792360&forum=5F=
id=3D42019

--=20
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Hello all.

Sorry Jos last two messages were meant to be sent to the list, it wasn't=20
private at all :(
I re-send them just to keep track.

1=BA)    The question about how parser should interpret this N3=20
expression, what  the set of triples generated by the parser should be.
Whether this triples are just :s :p :o
or  {} implies parser has to reify them.

2=BA)    Yes , we were not sure but it looked like.
But as we tell you before our test cases will be yours and this is taken=20
from :
   =20
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/eulersharp/2004/02swap/testCases/ge=
dcom-relations.n3?rev=3D1.1&view=3Dauto=20

line 75.

Háló,

> With OWL this becomes:
> :person1 owl:differentFrom :person2.

I think that is a far better approach; be it standard
or not, I think we should stick to the commonly
accepted N3 syntax as much as possible, specially in
those cases in which there exist more than reasonable
alternatives to express a certain concept.

Cheers,

Alfred

___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 100MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de

Note: forwarded message attached.

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. 
http://messenger.yahoo.com
Hallo Naudts
Great job , I've committed it at sourceforge cvs.
Not sure why you got troubles with CVS, anyway you have now the admin role.

Still we're fixing the scanner and parser, :(

But as soon we finish it we'll try to help with the inference engine and 
test.

Cheers
    4clerks

naudts guido wrote:

>Hallo,
>It seems I cannot send ZIP files neither. So I send it
>individually?
>Greetings, Guido
>Note: forwarded message attached.
>
>
>
>		
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> inferencing test
> From:
> naudts guido <nau...@ya...>
> Date:
> Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> eulermoz_dev <eul...@li...>
>
> To:
> eulermoz_dev <eul...@li...>
>
> Received:
> from [82.174.79.12] by web40511.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 16 Oct 
> 2004 14:36:31 PDT
> MIME-Version:
> 1.0
> Content-Type:
> multipart/mixed; boundary="0-466824978-1097962591=:91361"
> Content-Length:
> 12270
>
>
>Hallo everybody, 
>I've been testing; Python is more different from
>Javascript than I tought; I head some headaches but
>that's part of the game, I suppose (-:
>I have two test cases now in module testinf.xul.
>It is pretty obvious I think how other testcases can
>be made (while waiting for a connection to Mozilla
>parser).
>I wanted to put this on sourceforge in a directory
>rdfinf but it does not seem to be working.
>So I attach a zip file.
>Greetings, Guido.
>
>
>		
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. 
>http://messenger.yahoo.com
>

Hi, Alfred

It is also the first time for me that I see that /=3D
Cwm also gives a swap.notation3.BadSyntax

--=20
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Alfred D=F6blin <alfred=5Fd...@ya...>
Sent by: eul...@li...
18/10/2004 17:57

=20
        To:     eul...@li...
        cc:     (bcc: Jos De=5FRoo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER)
        Subject:        [Eulermoz-developers] Meaning of /=3D

Hi,

trying to parse gedcom-relations.n3 I've come across a
never-heard-of symbol cluster my scanner has been
unable to deal with:

{{:person1 /=3D :person2} log:implies {:person1
ont:differentIndividualFrom :person2}} a log:Truth;
log:forAll :person1, :person2.
# rule added for N3Engine - G.Naudts

Does /=3D constitute standard n3? Where could we find
more information about it? What does it mean?

Cheers,

Alfred, 4Clerks

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 100MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier=20
anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out=20
more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
Eulermoz-developers mailing list
Eul...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eulermoz-developers

Hi, Antonio

Not sure I understand your question...
In my mind there are just triples :s :p :o
and for :s and :o we can *use* (not mention)
a set of triples for which { } is used.
So that's why you can have the nesting for
instance in a proof formula such as
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-proof.n3

hope this helps,
jos

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

"antonio.lopez" <ant...@pt...>
Sent by: eul...@li...
15/10/2004 11:24
Please respond to antonio.lopez

        To:     eulermoz developers <eul...@li...>
        cc:     (bcc: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER)
        Subject:        [Eulermoz-developers] We have a doubt

Hello all.

After Jos detected some troubles within the javascript parser we
realized there were some more pitfail at  our  Java version.
So now we are trying to fixed them all. We are also testing against the
same test cases original Euler project does.
And hopefully soon we'll have a new stable and tested version out.

But we have a doubt, reading gedcom-proof.n3 we found starting at line
405 somethin like :
{{{:Greta gc:childIn :dp.
:Jos gc:childIn :dp.
:Greta ont:differentIndividualFrom :Jos} log:implies
{:Greta gc:sibling :Jos}} log:implies
{:Jos gc:sibling :Greta}.

So how would we have to understand variableless sentencies?
{:Jos gc:sibling :Greta}.
a) As reified statements
b) As normal statements
c) As both

Sorry about this crappy test, but N3 syntax appears to be more triky
than we thought.
Thanks, in advance.

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out 
more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Eulermoz-developers mailing list
Eul...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eulermoz-developers

2004	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug (8)	Sep (13)	Oct (26)	Nov (3)	Dec
2005	Jan (2)	Feb (3)	Mar (2)	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May (1)	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun (1)	Jul	Aug (2)	Sep (1)	Oct	Nov	Dec

eulermoz-developers Mailing List for EulerMoz

eulermoz-developers — Internal mailing list for active developers