- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:43:15 +0100
- To: massimo@w3.org
- Cc: ""Dan Connolly" <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, ""Pat Hayes" <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "<w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, ""Lynn AndreaStein" <las" <las@olin.edu>
[...] > 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