W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2005

RE: How to state simple facts in RDF

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:18:12 +0100
Message-ID: <D46BE408DE18F841B90DEFA8CAA2CDB2DEA33A@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@ontopia.net>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

This question came up in RDFCore.  The suggestion at the time was to use
rdf:type, e.g.

  Eg::company rdf:type eg:BankruptCompany .

Brian
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lars 
> Marius Garshol
> Sent: 27 June 2005 15:00
> To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: How to state simple facts in RDF
> 
> 
> 
> In the work of the RDFTM task force the issue of how simple 
> facts are represented in RDF has come up, since the task 
> force needs to find a way to express such facts in RDF.
> 
> It's probably not clear what I'm talking of here, but 
> examples are statements like "this case is closed", "this 
> company is bankrupt", "this article is a draft", and so on.
> 
> How do people usually express this in RDF, and what is the "best" way?
> The task force thought of several alternatives, but would be 
> interested to hear what the best practice is, if there is 
> one, and what individuals think, if there is no best practice.
> 
> -- 
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: 
> http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2005 08:18:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:43 UTC