RE: ISSUE-3: REPORTED: Lack of anonymous individuals

Somewhere in the midsts of this thread ...

Boris wrote:
[[
Imagine you have an ABox A containing the following assertions:

(1)  hor(_:1,_:2)
(2)  ver(_:2,_:3)
(3)  ver(_:1,_:4)
(4)  hor(_:4,_:5)
(5)  _:3 != _:5

]]
etc.

I find the message compelling.

As one of the RFC Core WG who originally raised our ISSUE-46, I would be 
satisfied with allowing anonymous individuals in the tree like fashion 
(ISSUE-3) and disallowing them in the general position (ISSUE-46).

Personally, I have enough information to be able to vote for closing 
both issues as above.

I haven't thought through your alternative of skolemized semantics 
throughout ... my gut feel is negative.

Given that ISSUE 46 was originally raised by RDF Core, I would suggest 
passing any proposal to close it, and a rationale (e.g. Boris's message) 
in front of Pat Hayes - and assuming he is happy, notifying semantic web 
interest, noting that I and Pat, are satisfied would close the 
procedural loop. Both of these could be done as an action after a 
decision to close the issue - with the issue in a pending-close state 
for a short time.

Jeremy