RE: motivation for bNodes/existentials in RDF; note for parsers

[...]

> I think what concerns me most, in this context, is the appropriate
> explanation of why this is the choice to make, versus the most
> obvious choice we have at our disposal (i.e., skolemization).
> That is, what are the pro's and con's that favour the existential
> approach vs the skolem one?

well, bNodes are quite all-round I think
- in an graph with asserted facts they are existentials
  which could be written as skolem constants, indeed
- in a query (graph) they are universals
- in the LHS (graph) of an entailment they are universals
- in owl lists the are functional terms
  i.e. (a b) denotes the same thing wether it's
  written in one graph, or written in another graph
- in the RHS (graph) of an entailment they are skolem
  functions which could be written as daml lists (I think)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 14:44:11 UTC