W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > September 2006

Re: Issue-12 and the next UCR draft

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:24:07 -0400
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: axel@polleres.net, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060913152542.8C8FD4F008@homer.w3.org>

> There are deep issues with BNodes that have hurt us in SPARQL, and I  
> think most extant SemWeb rule languages largely punt on them. It  
> would be good to deal with them properly. (e.g., are BNodes scoped to  
> the document? Even when they appear in rules?)

Is it clear enough how RDF with BNodes maps to FOL?  I'm hoping RIF can
avoid paying attention to the details of BNodes by thinking of RDF as
simply a fragment of FOL and BNodes as a constrained syntax for
existential variables.

     -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:25:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:40 UTC