----- Original message ----- > On 03/02/2011 07:21 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > > > On Mar 2, 2011, at 9:54 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > > > > On 2 Mar 2011, at 14:18, William Waites wrote: > > > > maybe some convention or > > > > standard for skolemising blank nodes so they can be > > > > referred to might be a good thing? > > > > > > There is already a convention/standard for skolemising blank nodes: > > > just use a URI instead. > > > > But that subtly changes the RDF, because the URI has global scope. > > Is there any practical difference between bnodes and normal nodes, > except the scope (and necessity) of their name? Yes, a graph with bnodes can potentially be simplified: the same meaning may be expressed with a more lean graph, i.e. with less nodes and triples. If all your nodes are uris you cannot do simplifications with rdf entaillment. Cheers, Reto > > Best, > Jiri > > > Pat > > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > -w > > > > -- > > > > William Waites <mailto:ww@styx.org> > > > > http://river.styx.org/ww/ <sip:ww@styx.org> > > > > F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB 3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:51:01 UTC