Re: ISSUE-3: REPORTED: Lack of anonymous individuals

I do not claim I understand all the technical issues here, but wouldn't
that have any effect on backward compatibility with OWL1.0? (Although we
still have to define what that means exactly, of course).

Ivan

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
> Related to the question of skolems versus existentials, I note that both
> the OWL 1.0 and the OWL 1.1 RDF mappings make liberal use of bnodes. Is
> there any reason that we couldn't use skolems (which are not bnodes)?
> 
> -- 
> 
> It doesn't seem like a good idea to me to *interpret* bnodes as skolems.
> Better to assume that we serialize skolems as urn:uuid: as Reto
> suggested in the email Bijan cites.
> 
> It seems to me that we could actually support both.
> 
> Individual(type(owl:Thing)) could be a skolem
> SomeIndividual(type(owl:Thing)) could be an existential.
> 
> Suppose we dropped bnodes(old style anonymous individuals) from OWL-DL,
> but not OWL-Full, what would be the consequences? We couldn't generate,
> within OWL-DL, bnodes. I'm not sure this is a big deal. It means we
> can't generate idiomatic foaf. It also means that OWL rendered in turtle
> gets potentially uglier.
> 
> We could read bnodes within rdf and interpret them within OWL by way of
> the translation to the explicit existential (restriction on property
> blah blah), as long as there were only trees of bnodes, i.e, as Bijan notes
> 
> Can anyone say why doing things this way would be problematic?
> 
> -Alan
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf