- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 22:42:34 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, public-lod@w3.org
Nathan wrote: > 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 ..") As in the requirements section here: http://www.w3.org/wiki/BnodeSkolemization
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2011 21:43:49 UTC