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

Re: skolems: visible differences?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:23:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080113.082351.84373718.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: skolems: visible differences?
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:41:30 +0000

> 
> On Jan 13, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
> > Subject: Re: skolems: visible differences?
> > Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:09:43 +0000
> >
> >> On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>> If that is the case, could we simply have the syntax allow turtle
> >>> style bnode syntax _:xxx for individual names and have these be
> >>> considered anonymous individuals in the way RDF people are used to
> >>> writing them?
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >
> > I'm not sure how RDF people are used to writing anonymous individuals.
> 
> They use BNodes.
> 
> > Could someone provide some pointers to how this is expected to work?
> 
> As with most RDF systems (or, for example SPARQL) BNodes are  
> interpreted as skolem for entailment or query purposes and thought of  
> as (local) names by users. 

Hmm, but this is not complete with respect to entailment in the RDF
semantics, as far as I can tell.

> The main issue is that BNode identifiers  
> are local to a graph so must be handled carefully on merge. 

> Leaning  
> graphs can be seen as a procedure for introducing a set of equalities  
> according to a fairly specific procedure.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.


peter
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2008 13:50:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 13 January 2008 13:50:36 GMT