- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:02:33 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Ah! I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean to exchange bnodes in general; I realize that this would not work. What I meant was the following. The current rule set associates each literal with a fresh bnode; my understanding is that a new graph is created replacing each literal with this associated counterpart for the rule engine; at the end of processing these bnodes are switched back to the original literals. What I meant is that, today, we could those associations using skolems I believe instead of bnodes. Of course, if we use the generalized triple approach for the rules then that full association business becomes unnecessary... Ivan --- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) On 7 Nov 2012, at 19:22, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > >> >> On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:17 , Pat Hayes wrote: >> >> > ............. >>> So, no, you can't just use skolem URIs instead of bnodes in inference rules. The resulting rules would not even be logically valid. >> >> Interesting. Just for my intellectual curiosity: can you clarify that? > > Sure. Take a simple example. > > _:x :a ex:Fish . > > does not entail > > skolem:newname2346 :a ex:Fish . > > So any rules that go from a bnode-containing triple to another triple containing the same bnode can't work by going 'through' triples in which the bnode is replaced by a skolemized URI. > > Pat > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 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, 8 November 2012 01:03:00 UTC