W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2008

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:26:54 -0500
Message-Id: <D8A57374-1B39-4328-A8E7-3970DF2A6F26@gmail.com>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
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?


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
Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 06:27:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC