|
Nevertheless, they are in a strong sense almost interchangeable <a data-cite="RDF12-SEMANTICS#simple">RDF simple interpretations</a>, as shown the next two properties. The third property means that even when conclusions are drawn with <a data-cite="RDF12-SEMANTICS#simple">simple entailment</a> from the skolemized graph which do contain the new vocabulary, these will exactly mirror what could have been derived with <a data-cite="RDF12-SEMANTICS#simple">simple entailment</a> from the original graph with the original blank nodes in place. The replacement of blank nodes by IRIs does not effectively alter what can be validly derived with <a data-cite="RDF12-SEMANTICS#simple">simple entailment</a> from the graph, other than by giving new <a>name</a>s to what were formerly anonymous entities. The fourth property, which is a consequence of the third, clearly shows that in some sense a skolemization of G can "stand in for" G as far as <a data-cite="RDF12-SEMANTICS#simple">simple entailments</a> are concerned. Using sk(G) instead of G will not affect any <a data-cite="RDF12-SEMANTICS#simple">simple entailments</a> which do not involve the new skolem vocabulary. </p> |
The ridiculously long line linked above needs some grammar fixes, which I suggested previously in #157 (comment)
