Re: mergeg in current Semantics ED

Oops, very true.

peter


On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>
> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Well, basic entailments such as
>
> :a :p :b .
> |=
> _:x :p :b .
>
> would not hold. Or, another example,
>
> :a :p "25"^xsd:integer .
> |=
> _:x :p "25"xsd:integer .
> _:x rdf:type xsd:integer .
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> > peter
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>