- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:27:32 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: aswartz@upclink.com, Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > > I think/hack that both anonymous *terms* can be *unified* > > > which is NOT the same as equality > > > > Then your hack only seems to works when we can unify anonymous > > terms, or they have some sort of UniqueProperty attached. How do > > we solve the general case? > >There was some related discussion in the telecon >this afternoon, and I was kind of unable to explain >my point...(I'm really hopeless in that respect) > >The thing about anonymous nodes is that they >are ***variables*** >if they would be constants, we would be able >to identify them with ***URI constants*** >Now they are actually existentially quantified >variables, something like: there exists an _:a >or (using existing vocab): this log:forSome _:a >So I think we should say that *explicitly* >is the testresults (and in the model theory) >(the general case?) Well, logically they seem to be like existentially quantified variables, yes. But you CANT unify distinct existentially quantified variables (validly) ! They would be distinct skolem constants, which do not unify in general. (They do if they are existential variables bound by the same quantifier, but then they would be the same skolem constant :-) Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 15:27:33 UTC