W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2012

Re: OWL equivalentClass question

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:03:05 +0100
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, semantic-web@w3.org, nathan@webr3.org, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8C766519-31CE-427A-8331-936337F22D8C@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
On 15 Jul 2012, at 10:58, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> Oh, for example,
> 
> Skolemization:
> 	Blah blah blah definition blah blah balh.
> 	Note: Many applications and specifications rely on non-skolemized graphs. The skolemization operation almost certainly will break these, causing rejection of the skolemized graph or unanticipated results. Skolemization should be regarded as a destructive operation.

Oh, screw me! Insidious weasally specese!

"Skolemizatin IS a destructive operation and will change the meaning of your graphs. It's useful, but if you don't know what you're doing don't come crying to us that your data is a mess."

:)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 15 July 2012 10:03:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 15 July 2012 10:03:27 GMT