- From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:53:03 -0800
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 20:53:35 UTC
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > On Mar 8, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > [...] > > > > A different way to go would be to just have interpretations map b-nodes > directly. This would treat bnodes as skolems - the only difference between > a bnode and a skolem is that a bnode *cannot* escape into the wild. > > That would be a real change to the semantics, with far-reaching > consequences. It owuld effectively remove bnodes altogether (other than an > a syntax for local names). > > Pat > But what would the consequences be? I'm having a hard time thinking of any, except when the bnode scope goes beyond a single graph. peter
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 20:53:35 UTC