- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:00:46 -0400
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Fulfilling action-164, Here is a pointer to the email when I first suggested we consider supporting both bnodes and unnamed (for the user) individuals. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0214.html Snippet, omitting unrelated, but not current suggestions. 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. That is, we could offer two forms of anonymous individual constructors. Neither would specify a name. One form of constructor would allocate a unique (to exceedingly high probability) name. The other would use a bnode, interpreted using the usual existential semantics. Tree-shape restrictions would hold for the existentials, but not for the other kinds of anonymous individuals. -Alan
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 11:01:28 UTC