Re: local names

> 
> > > > > 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?

If you use symbols from the sort iri then you have a global constant. If
you use constants from some other sort (e.g., string or we might introduce
a separate sort for that) then they are local names.
Where do you see a problem?


	--michael  


> 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 23:28:08 UTC