- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:10:16 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Ivan Herman wrote: > Some hair splitting again on the editorial side. > > In 2.8, RDF Collection, it simply says that (1 ?x 3) is an alternative for > > _:b0 rdf:first 1 . > _:b0 rdf:rest _:b1 . > _:b1 rdf:first ?x . > _:b1 rdf:rest _:b2 . > _:b2 rdf:first 3 . > _:b2 rdf:rest rdf:nil . > > It may be worth adding (or reformulating the text) that a triple pattern: > > :a :b (1 ?x 3). > > is then *replaced* by the triple: > > :a :b _:b0. > > where _:b0 is the one above (ie, the (1 ?x 3) is not mechanically replaced by > the stuff above, it would be syntactically incorrect because it would lead to a > duplicated full stop...). > > It may be obvious but I think it is worth making it clear. > > Ivan > > Ivan, Afetr changes based on your previous comments, the "RDF Collections" section says that (1 ?x 3) :p "w" . is short for: _:b0 :p "w" . _:b0 rdf:first 1 . _:b0 rdf:rest _:b1 . _:b1 rdf:first ?x . _:b1 rdf:rest _:b2 . _:b2 rdf:first 3 . _:b2 rdf:rest rdf:nil . to avoid saying that the list is replaced by the triples (which would indeed be syntactically wrong). It's not so much that any triple is *replaced* (the triples really are there) - it's about how they are written down. Does "is short for" meet your comment? Andy
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:11:04 UTC