- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 22:38:58 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, public-lod@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: > On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Nathan wrote: > >> Michael Brunnbauer wrote: >>> I would prefer a way of skolemizing that does not depend on the graph name >>> and can be done by producer *and* consumer of RDF on a voluntary base. >>> It should be a standard with reference implementations in all important >>> languages for: >>> -generating a skolem URI >>> -converting an unskolemized RDF serialization to a skolemized one >>> -converting a skolemized RDF serialization to an unskolemized one >>> It is important that skolem URIs would be recognizeable. >> I agree, why a URI? > > Because the only point of this entire thread and discussion is to make RDF more regular, by replacing bnodes with URIs, so that all names in all triples are URIs or literals. Thus, conforming RDF will be simplified from having three kinds of node to two (URIs and literals). If we introduce something other than a URI, we will have gone from three to four kinds of node, which does not strike me as a simplification. "It is important that skolem URIs would be recognizeable.", what would the purpose of them being recognizable, if there were only literals and URIs? (I'm taking you to be talking about loosing ∃ from RDF, and others to be trying to find a way to keep the ability to say something, and changing that to "something, let's call it X, that has ..") Best, Nathan
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2011 21:40:13 UTC