Re: mergeg in current Semantics ED

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>
> On Mar 8, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>
> [...]


> >
> > A different way to go would be to just have interpretations map b-nodes
> directly.  This would treat bnodes as skolems - the only difference between
> a bnode and a skolem is that a bnode *cannot* escape into the wild.
>
> That would be a real change to the semantics, with far-reaching
> consequences. It owuld effectively remove bnodes altogether (other than an
> a syntax for local names).
>
> Pat
>

But what would the consequences be?  I'm having a hard time thinking of
any, except when the bnode scope goes beyond a single graph.

peter