- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:02:13 -0400
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer)
- Cc: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > > > I was not one of the big proponents of local names in the RIF, but I
> > > > believe that the proponents (MichaelK, Hassan) share my definition, i.e
> .
> > > > local names are not existentially quantified variables, but rigid const
> ants
> >
> > > Yes, local names have nothing to do with bNodes.
> > > bNodes have logical meaning. Local names is just a twist to the naming sc
> hema
> >
> > Can you give me one or more example that show this? Like, if I were
> > writing a translator from RIF Core to some FOL, how would I translate
> > local names, and IRIs, and how would merging work?
>
> I am not sure what kind of examples you are looking for.
> A bNode is Exists X p(...X...). RDF has a special notation for this.
Yes.
> A local name is just an artifact of the naming scheme.
> Global names have the form of a uri and local names do not.
> They might have the form like 'foobar' or '123 %$# xyz'.
So the characters 'http://example.com' might be used as a local name, a
global name, or both, in the same ruleset. When it's used as a global
name (an IRI) it refers to the same thing as in other rulesets, but when
it's used as a local name we can't learn anything about what it refers
to from other rulesets. Is that right?
Actually, I'm inclined to put this subject on hold until we're farther
along with concrete examples of RIF usage. Once we have some working
RIF examples, it should be easy enough to see what difference it makes
to toggle some names between global and local.
-- Sandro
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 22:03:12 UTC