W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: bnodes

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:53:44 +0100
Message-Id: <5958C537-FB46-421A-A346-1BBF09F187CD@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <rbg@talis.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>

On 2 Oct 2007, at 15:44, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> You disagree. I get it. File a bug report with SPARQL. File a bug
>> report with RIF.
> Bijan is perhaps speaking rhetorically,

Not about sparql but yes about RIF, or perhaps speculatively.

> but if you want to take it
> literally, you'll probably to wait for the next public working draft
> from RIF to see what the semantics document actually says about RDF
> b-nodes.    I'd expect it in about a month.
>> (Roughly, I'd prefer to have a sort of skolem constant instead of
>> bnodes, if this helps you any :))
> Do you want Skolem constants which are labeled as Skolem constants?
> I've seen FOL theorem provers do labeling like that (when they do
> Skolemization), and I doubt it affects the semantics, so I assume it's
> there for users and for guiding strategies.

I'm content for there to be a syntactic difference between locally  
names/gensyms and URIs

> It often seems to me that bnodes should have been left out of RDF.
> They're useful, but also painful.

Yep. But I think we can minimize the pain without hurting current use  
patterns too much and pave the way for better overall use patterns.

>   (Or maybe, all things considered,
> RDF should have been left out of RDF.  :-)

Welcome to the daaaaarrrrrrrk siiiiiiddde.


Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 14:52:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC