- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:09:43 +0000
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Testing my understanding of the skolem constant proposal for > anonymous individuals: > > If we adopted the treatment of bnodes as skolem constants, would it > be the case that we no longer had the tree-shape restriction for > related anonymous individuals? Correct. You could still get them, but you would have to encode them as existential restrictions, or using Carsten's proposed universal role. > If that is the case, could we simply have the syntax allow turtle > style bnode syntax _:xxx for individual names and have these be > considered anonymous individuals in the way RDF people are used to > writing them? Yep. > As I understood it, the avoidance of giving names to anonymous > individuals was to make it impossible to express, in the abstract > syntax, anything but tree-shape relationships. Yep. They become names that have certain conditions on parsing, serialization, and merging. > Coupling this with serializing skolem constants as bnodes, it would > seem that this would advance our ability to have more RDF graphs be > considered valid OWL, affirmatively addressing Issue 46, yes? Yep. It also makes SPARQL/OWL work much much better (i.e., more compatibly with SPARQL/RDF). Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2008 00:10:01 UTC