Re: A proposal for introducing anonymous individuals into OWL 1.1 functional-style syntax

Actually, maybe it is worse than skolem. It seems to me that the  
SPARQL semantics has a unique name assumption. Is it valid, if the  
input graph is

_:a r o
_:b r o

and the pattern

?s r o

To return a single triple?

-Alan

On Feb 18, 2008, at 12:48 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Boris Motik wrote:
>
>> Finally, we would extend the semantics document to treat anonymous  
>> individuals in exactly the same way as this is done in SPARQL.  
>> This would give us a slightly weaker semantics than what is  
>> currently available in OWL (1.0) Full.
>
> Hi Boris,
>
> This seems to be the skolem proposal again,  as close as I can  
> tell. Do I misunderstand?
>
> -Alan