- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:44:12 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <rbg@talis.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
> You disagree. I get it. File a bug report with SPARQL. File a bug
> report with RIF.
Bijan is perhaps speaking rhetorically, but if you want to take it
literally, you'll probably to wait for the next public working draft
from RIF to see what the semantics document actually says about RDF
b-nodes. I'd expect it in about a month.
> (Roughly, I'd prefer to have a sort of skolem constant instead of
> bnodes, if this helps you any :))
Do you want Skolem constants which are labeled as Skolem constants?
I've seen FOL theorem provers do labeling like that (when they do
Skolemization), and I doubt it affects the semantics, so I assume it's
there for users and for guiding strategies.
It often seems to me that bnodes should have been left out of RDF.
They're useful, but also painful. (Or maybe, all things considered,
RDF should have been left out of RDF. :-)
- s
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 14:44:55 UTC