- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:56:26 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "\"\"Peter F. \"Patel-Schneider <pfps\"" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
[...] > > Stop short of what? Functional terms? Has anyone proposed functional > > terms? > > er... Jos mentioned them... > > > > but functional terms could be there I think... All I wanted to express is that there is a difference between the general case of [ :p1 :o1; :p2 :o2 ] . i.e. _:si :p1 :o1; :p2 :o2 . and _:s1 rdf:first :o1; rdf:rest :o2 . _:s2 owl:intersectionOf :l2 . _:s3 owl:unionOf :l3 . _:s4 owl:disjointUnionOf :l4 . _:s5 owl:oneOf :l5 . in the sense that in the latter case _:si is unambiguously identified and so we can take it as a funtional term and avoid all the power/grief of Skolem funtions in conclusions which are otherwise needed in the CNF (Clause Normal Form) rewrite of rules with existentials in conclusions. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 9 June 2002 18:25:28 UTC