- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:36:45 +0100
- To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 17/06/13 10:22, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > On Monday, June 17, 2013 10:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> There seem to be 3 kinds of skolemization: >> >> 1/ replacement (unconstrained; one-way) >> >> 2/ round-trippable (the generating system can recover a bNode if the >> URI comes back; this was one of the original motivations) > > I think the key point here is that it is done within the boundaries of a > single system you have control over. > > >> 3/ globalization (giving a recognizable identify to the bnode outside >> it's original context/data; the bnode is now transferrable to other >> systems; other systems can reverse the process) > > Wouldn't that mean that a Skolem IRI === bNode and thus be at odds with the > definition of bnodes: "The blank nodes in an RDF graph are drawn from an > infinite set. This set is disjoint from the set of all IRIs and the set of > all literals". It's giving a name so it's not identity. It's not happening at the level of semantics or the proper data model. You can think of it as a It is extending 2 to create a tunnel for blank nodes within the RDF 1.1 syntax. The fact that the rules for skolemization are now published (in 2, they are not) makes it different. Andy > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > >
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 09:37:18 UTC