Re: {Disarmed} Re: blank nodes (once again)

At 22:14 18.03.2011, Pat Hayes wrote:

>On Mar 18, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Dieter Fensel wrote:
>
> > At 03:35 18.03.2011, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >> Um... Look, there really isn't a problem here. That is, there's 
> nothing at all mysterious or intuitively wrong about bnodes. It is 
> entirely a matter of scoping. An RDF graph with bnodes in it is 
> like an existentially quantified sentence in logic.
> >
> > Hmm. Was it maybe a mistake to implicitely include existential 
> quantification in RDF because RDF (without
> > named graphs) does not provide any scoping mechanism (not even 
> brackets like Lisp)? Covering the issue
> > through skolemization and leave richer logical means to OWL and 
> RIF may be a more pragmatic choice saving us
> > some 1000 emails on clarifying the incomprehensible? I thought I 
> was reading this proposal between the
> > lines of earlier emails of you?
>
>Yup, thats what I suggested to the WG. It flew like a lead balloon 
>:-)  Its probably too radical for our current charter.

Yes, I understood an email of you like this. And yes, one has to very 
carefully formulate the proposal to not conflict with the charter
and to ensure backward compatibility.

>As a fallback, I am thinking of writing up a spec-like document 
>defining 'ground RDF', to show how much simpler everything is when 
>you don't have them. It would cover RDF, RDFS, OWL and SPARQL. What 
>do you think?

Yes, this sounds very useful to me. In the end, a formal semantics of 
a language should be a guidance to define
an understandable version (sub fragment ?) of it and not necessarily 
should try to reflect any complex feature of it.

-- 
Dieter Fensel
Director STI Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck, Austria
http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/
phone: +43-512-507-6488/5, fax: +43-512-507-9872

Received on Sunday, 20 March 2011 21:48:52 UTC