W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Action-164 suggestions (again) for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:00:46 -0400
Message-Id: <41BCA085-C94F-4C91-ADF4-0B84DD404B45@gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC