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
phone: +43-512-507-6488/5, fax: +43-512-507-9872

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