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 13:28:33 +0200
To: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <012501ce6b4d$cde87320$69b95960$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Monday, June 17, 2013 1:14 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> I'm not proposing an approach - I just outlined some different usages
> that seem, to me, to be behind the discussion.

Yeah, and I just tried to understand that :-)
 

> You picked === (identity equality, not equivalence) which I understood
> to be that a claim that the IRI is identical to the bNode. 

That's what I meant.


> IRIs do not
> work like bNodes - we're agreed on that - that's at the model theory
> level.  Skolemization looses something, we need to make sure it isn't a
> harmful loss.

Agreed, I think at the moment I'm just trying to fully understand the
consequences (on all levels) of skolemization because I'm not really sure I
do understand how those well-known IRIs are supposed to be used or
interpreted. At the moment I have the feeling that there are two
interpretations of those well-known skolem IRIs. One is that they are
"special" and more or less just a hack to work around a limitation in the
RDF data model. Everyone seeing such a IRI will know that it actually is a
blank node. The other is that they are just normal IRIs to the outside
world, i.e., global valid identifiers. Once they leave my system, they are
just like every other IRI.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 11:29:04 UTC

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