Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Eulermoz-developers] We have a doubt
|
From: <jos...@ag...> - 2004-10-19 08:05:53
|
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
|
