- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:53:44 +0100
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <rbg@talis.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 2 Oct 2007, at 15:44, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> You disagree. I get it. File a bug report with SPARQL. File a bug >> report with RIF. > > Bijan is perhaps speaking rhetorically, Not about sparql but yes about RIF, or perhaps speculatively. > 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. I'm content for there to be a syntactic difference between locally names/gensyms and URIs > It often seems to me that bnodes should have been left out of RDF. > They're useful, but also painful. Yep. But I think we can minimize the pain without hurting current use patterns too much and pave the way for better overall use patterns. > (Or maybe, all things considered, > RDF should have been left out of RDF. :-) Welcome to the daaaaarrrrrrrk siiiiiiddde. :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 14:52:40 UTC