W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:05:28 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B7887732114404316217C3@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: 15 November, 2001 04:25
> To: Brian McBride
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties
> 
> 
> >Issue
> >
> >   
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-p
> roperties
> >
> >requests a standard way to represent boolean valued properties and 
> >suggests the definition of rdf:is and rdf:isNot properties to meet 
> >this need.
> >
> >Propose that as schema data types define a boolean data value, this 
> >issue be merged with:
> >
> >   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes
> 
> Hmm, not sure I agree. That is one way to do it, but another would be 
> to say that a boolean-valued property should be identified with a 
> class; the property is true of aaa iff aaa is in the class. The 
> example of ChocolateLover certainly suggests this to me. Then rdf:is 
> would be rdf:type.

I think I also prefer this rdf:type approach, but the question arises,
how does one express explicit negation? rdf:notType?  ;-)

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 06:06:10 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:41 EDT