W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:57:23 -0500
Message-Id: <4C24BFD1-3ADE-4407-8E07-E1FC1F7412D6@gmail.com>
To: Web Ontology Language (OWL) Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Related to the question of skolems versus existentials, I note that  
both the OWL 1.0 and the OWL 1.1 RDF mappings make liberal use of  
bnodes. Is there any reason that we couldn't use skolems (which are  
not bnodes)?

--

It doesn't seem like a good idea to me to *interpret* bnodes as  
skolems. Better to assume that we serialize skolems as urn:uuid: as  
Reto suggested in the email Bijan cites.

It seems to me that we could actually support both.

Individual(type(owl:Thing)) could be a skolem
SomeIndividual(type(owl:Thing)) could be an existential.

Suppose we dropped bnodes(old style anonymous individuals) from OWL- 
DL, but not OWL-Full, what would be the consequences? We couldn't  
generate, within OWL-DL, bnodes. I'm not sure this is a big deal. It  
means we can't generate idiomatic foaf. It also means that OWL  
rendered in turtle gets potentially uglier.

We could read bnodes within rdf and interpret them within OWL by way  
of the translation to the explicit existential (restriction on  
property blah blah), as long as there were only trees of bnodes, i.e,  
as Bijan notes

Can anyone say why doing things this way would be problematic?

-Alan
Received on Saturday, 10 November 2007 08:57:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT