- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:25:59 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Ron Alford <ronwalf@umd.edu>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Amy Alford <aloomis@glue.umd.edu>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:18:54PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > Thinking about it a little more, it does seem to change the semantics of > > every graph that gets rewritten in that way. > > The _!:... mechanism has the same effect, no? In the context in > which it's used, it works logically like a URI; i.e. it matches > the way URIs match. I don't believe so. As Ron says in another message, OWL DL says some things (i.e. restrictions) have to be anonymous. _!:foo is still anonymous, while a URI isn't. So they may be, from some point of view, equivalent, but they have different effects, one of which is unacceptable IMO. > > 1. It make sense (which is a good thing) > > I accept that as your position; I don't share it. Care to say why you claim that it doesn't make sense? (I assume you don't mean that making sense isn't a good thing! :>) > This is more than syntactic sugar for something that can already > be expressed, isn't it? Hmm, yeah, maybe "syntactic sugar" is the wrong way to put it. I guess I meant to say that it's a syntactic solution, rather than sugar for something else that can already be expressed. > What is this short for? > > SELECT ?MBOX > WHERE { _!:l55c33 foaf:mbox ?MBOX. }. Okay, so it's not sugar per se. This is the first I've heard you say that one of Andy's solutions to the bnode problem isn't a solution. I guess we disagree about that. > > 4. It feels right -- i.e., it's sufficient to the problem, but not overly > > powerful, such that other, hard-to-see issues might be raised. > > Adding a new type of term (in addition to URI, literal, bnode, and > universal variable) makes me quite nervous about hard-to-see issues. Fair enough. Nervousness, like mileage, obviously varies. Kendall Clark
Received on Monday, 11 July 2005 18:27:31 UTC