- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:03:03 +0200
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: >> There are deep issues with BNodes that have hurt us in SPARQL, and I >> think most extant SemWeb rule languages largely punt on them. It >> would be good to deal with them properly. (e.g., are BNodes scoped to >> the document? Even when they appear in rules?) >> > > Is it clear enough how RDF with BNodes maps to FOL? I'm hoping RIF can > avoid paying attention to the details of BNodes by thinking of RDF as > simply a fragment of FOL and BNodes as a constrained syntax for > existential variables. > > -- Sandro > > > It depends how ones look at the issue. The semantics seems pretty clear but e.g. the SPARQL WG is doubting it is appropriate for the language, as Bijan told last week. My understanding is that the RIF WG will as well have to consider the issue. Francois
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 11:03:22 UTC