Re: Indicating Skolem Nodes (was Re: AW: {Disarmed} Re: blank nodes (once again))

Ok. I withdraw the suggestion. Let us not abandon bnodes and not support skolemization. If people as smart as you are going to urge this kind of craziness, then the world is better off without "skolem URIs".  They will obviously cause way more confusion and muddle than we have already.  If people want to use URIs instead of blank nodes, let them use ordinary URIs. 

>> The point is that these URIs will be almost as blank as the blank
>> nodes they replace. Ideally they should be *exactly* as blank, if that
>> were possible. 
> No, that may be true for the use cases that *you* have in mind, but it
> may not be true for other people's use cases.

I have no use cases in mind. I am only concerned with the logic and keeping the overall RDF model consistent. As far as I can see, there should be no "use cases". ANY use of a skolem URI to carry ANY more information than would be carried by the blank node that it replaces, is a logical error. That is exactly why they must be 'new' and guaranteed to be distinct from any other URI.


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

Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 03:58:54 UTC