ISSUE-118 (bNode semantics): Should bNodes in OWL 2 DL have existential or skolem semantics? from OWL Working Group Issue Tracker on 2008-04-20 (public-owl-wg@w3.org from April 2008)

From: OWL Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:20:51 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080420222051.24C1EC6DB0@barney.w3.org>

ISSUE-118 (bNode semantics): Should bNodes in OWL 2 DL have existential or skolem semantics?

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/

Raised by: Michael Schneider
On product: 

At the F2F2 we have decided to introduce bNodes for individuals in class assertions and property assertions. But we deferred the question which semantics such bNodes should have:

  "RESOLVED: Resolve Issue 3 and Issue 46, 
  accepting Boris's proposal
  (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0008.html)
  only in terms of the syntax of bnodes, 
  and open a new issue on the semantics of bnodes, [...]" 

  (see: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_Minutes#Issue_3_.26_Issue_46_anonymous_individuals_.2F_Unnamed_Individual_Restrictions>)

Since this issue has not yet been raised, and since there exists ACTION-132 w.r.t. this non-raised issue, I hereby raise it.

Received on Sunday, 20 April 2008 22:21:27 UTC