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

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

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:09:48 +0100
Message-Id: <EC387A6A-4DF3-40D5-A0AD-98ECE0761CEE@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On 2 Jul 2008, at 13:58, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On Jul 2, 2008, at 8:33 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On 2 Jul 2008, at 12:21, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>> On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>>> On 2 Jul 2008, at 12:00, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>>>
>>> So better would be:
>>>
>>> UnnamedIndividual([handle] type(owl:Thing))
>>>
>>> where handle is name for the individual that has scoped within  
>>> the ontology only.
>>
>> Aka bnode ids :)
>
> No. Specifically not, by this proposal. A different syntactic  
> category. One that would function, however, in the way you have  
> proposed bnodes should (other than the fact that they are not,  
> technically, bnodes)

I meant "Aka" as in "A la". I.e., they serve the same purpose.

>>> Why? The individuals created by the "UnnamedIndividual()"  
>>> constructor are not really anonymous - they are named, just not  
>>> by the user. So we have tree-shaped restrictions for the  
>>> existentials, as in OWL 1, and arbitrary graphs of named  
>>> individuals, as before.
>>
>> If Bnodes have existential semantics and they appear in arbitrary  
>> graphs patterns, then we're back to where we started :)
>
> Yes, but I've just said that they can't. Only the the pseudo  
> anonymous individuals can appear in arbitrary graphs by this proposal.
[snip]
oh!, I misread:

"""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."""

I.e., that in the second, that "existentials" meant "someValuesFrom"  
not "BNodes with existential semantics".

I think the plural "kinds" was what threw me.

Yeah, fine.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:07:36 UTC

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