W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > June 2013

RE: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:52:31 +0200
To: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00eb01ce6b40$63145940$293d0bc0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Monday, June 17, 2013 11:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >> 3/ globalization (giving a recognizable identify to the bnode outside
> >> it's original context/data; the bnode is now transferrable to other
> >> systems; other systems can reverse the process)
 >
> > Wouldn't that mean that a Skolem IRI === bNode and thus be at odds
> > with the definition of bnodes: "The blank nodes in an RDF graph are
> > drawn from an infinite set. This set is disjoint from the set of all
> > IRIs and the set of all literals".
> 
> It's giving a name so it's not identity.  It's not happening at the
> level of semantics or the proper data model. You can think of it as a It
> is extending 2 to create a tunnel for blank nodes within the RDF 1.1
> syntax.  The fact that the rules for skolemization are now published (in
> 2, they are not) makes it different.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. To me it looks like a hack to
serialize a blank node using a IRI even though "everyone" knows that it is a
blank node. In case someone doesn't know (because it blindly treats IRIs as
IRIs) and uses that that skolem IRI in his own data (e.g. by referencing
it), the system would break down. IRIs are global identifiers, blank nodes
are local identifiers. I can't see how you can have both at the same time.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 09:53:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:57 UTC