Re: Blank nodes must DIE! [ was Re: Blank nodes semantics - existential variables?]

>
> In this specific case it could be rdf:type time:DateTimeDescription from
> OWL-Time.
> See https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time-position


That's right, Simon. Correct me if I'm wrong though, using

    type: time:DateTimeDescription

versus:

    type: xsd:DateTime

makes one a reference type and the other a value type.

The "Description" suffix leads to a little confusion I think. By the same
logic xsd:DateTime could be named xsd:DateTimeDescription, I think
time:DateTime might have been sufficient. The Circle example might be a
better example in any case.

Anthony

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:32 PM Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:

> It is a poetic license. And it is a concise way of expressing my
> understanding of how to denote everything that exists, including us.
>
> Laufer
>
> Em 07/07/2020 20:23, Patrick J Hayes escreveu:
>
> Ahem. Use/mention confusion. We are not bnodes. We can be /denoted by/
> bnodes. But since that is true of everything that exists, it isn't a
> terribly great accomplishment.
>
> Pat
>
> On Jul 7, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:
>
> we are blank nodes
>
> Cheers,
> _:x  :name  "Laufer"
>
>
> ---
>
> 劳费尔
>
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>
> ---
>
> 劳费尔
>
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>