- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 17:33:08 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Nah, that is even scarier. On reflection, maybe it is OK to say it doesnt "change the meaning". This phrase is just vague enough to be considered true, I think. BUt I dont like scare quotes if we can void them. So how about [[ADD: This transformation does not change the meaning of an RDF graph, provided that the Skolem URIs do not occur anywhere else.]] Pat On May 18, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > 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.]] > > Best, > Richard > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 22:33:40 UTC