Re: Proposal for ISSUE-40 Skolemization

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <
pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

> From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
> Subject: Re: Proposal for ISSUE-40 Skolemization
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:12:32 -0500
>
> > On 18 May 2011, at 20:20, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >>>> [[ADD: Implementors should realize that this transformation changes
> the meaning
> >>>> of an RDF graph (but this change is generally not harmful).]]
> >>>
> >>> That sounds a bit scary. Perhaps:
> >>>
> >>> [[ADD: This transformation does not change the meaning of an RDF
> >>> graph, except “using up” the Skolem IRI.]]
> >>
> >> But this isn't true.
> >
> > Grumble.
> >
> > How about this?
> >
> > [[ADD: This transformation slightly changes the meaning of an RDF
> >graph, because it “fixes” what the Skolem IRI identifies. See the
> >Skolemization Lemma in [RDF-Semantics] for a detailed technical
> >discussion.]]
>
> I'm not keen on this, either.  I think that it needs further fixing.
> :-)
>

Would it be correct to say that the graph that results from replacing blank
nodes with skolem IRIs simple-entails the original graph?  If so, is that a
useful thing to say here?

-Alex



>
> > Best,
> > Richard
>
> peter
>