- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:57:43 +0100
- To: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>
- Cc: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
On 12 Jan 2006, at 17:46, Jos de Bruijn wrote: > On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:06 -0500, Michael Kifer wrote: >> >> Exactly. From talking to a number of people with real-world RDF >> experience, >> I get the impression that b-nodes are used to refer to individuals >> when it >> is too inconvenient to give them explicit names. This is just >> Scolemization. >> >> Does anybody have *real-world* RDF experience with cases where truly >> existential semantics of b-nodes is used? > > When considering OWL rather than RDF, we see a lot more use of > existentials. The question is really what to do with them. > We could limit OWL in certain ways, as Enrico pointed out with the > standard names assumption, and have interaction between the DL > ontology > and the logic program on a model level, as Rosati demonstrated. > We could also limit ourselves to the exchange of ground > consequence, as > proposed by Eiter et al., so that we can reuse existing reasoners. I agree with this analysis. In fact, the goal of RIF is to be neutral wrt these choices, but to provide an exchange framework for rules that adopt any of the above well known and published semantics. --e.
Received on Saturday, 14 January 2006 16:58:05 UTC