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

Re: Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:03:01 -0500
Message-ID: <3BF3CB15.7010103@mitre.org>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Actually, when I first saw this proposal to use "type", I thought of 
Pat's alternative as possibly being better.  The question is, what 
significance do we attach to identifying something as a "type"?

--Frank


Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

> 
>>-----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
> 
> 


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 09:01:32 EST

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