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

>
> Indeed. Unfortunately that was the name given to the class by the
> designers of the DAML/OIL ontology that grew into OWL-Time. Our hands were
> tied.
>

Fair.

and we would be better off if the URI was unreadable (see OBO).
>
> Maybe we shouldn’t go there in this thread,
>

Agree. And definitely agree 😂

Anthony


On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 7:43 PM Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
wrote:

>
>    - The "Description" suffix leads to a little confusion I think. By the
>    same logic xsd:DateTime could be named xsd:DateTimeDescription,
>
>
>
> Indeed. Unfortunately that was the name given to the class by the
> designers of the DAML/OIL ontology that grew into OWL-Time. Our hands were
> tied.
>
>
>
> Though another view is that the local-name in the URI is not actually the
> class name, and we would be better off if the URI was unreadable (see OBO).
>
> Maybe we shouldn’t go there in this thread, though it does have some
> relationship to node-designators.
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 8 July, 2020 10:36
> *To:* Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
> *Cc:* Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>; Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
> *Subject:* 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
>
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>
>