- From: Jimmy Cerra <jimbobbs@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 02:05:35 -0400
- To: "'pat hayes'" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> Not sure what you mean. Certainly, it would be possible to take any
> OWL triple (Using Ntriples notation):
>
> ex:foo ex:Property ex:baz
>
> and replace it with
>
> _:x ex:Property ex:baz
> _:x owl:sameIndividualAs ex:foo
>
> and the two are equivalent. And since they are, the second form is
> kind of confusing (not wrong, but confusing) since one might easily
> think, when reading it, why didn't they just write the first one?
I was thinking that a node is some abstract thing, and the name (URI,
QName, whatever) of a node is a property of the node. So all nodes are
really blank; some are identified by a statement like the second N
Triple. However, I now think that is probably not be correct [1,2,3,4],
and the OWL property, "owl:sameIndividualAs", is not suited for general
identification.
--
Jimmy Cerra
] "I have learned these days, never to limit
] anyone else due to my own limited
] imagination." - Dr. Mae C. Jemison
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jun/0004.
html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2003May/0053.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2003May/0054.html
and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2003May/0055.html
Received on Friday, 6 June 2003 02:05:44 UTC