W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Spec doesn't talk about two-valued relationships

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:28:05 +0000
Message-ID: <3AA8B035.48E7711B@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
CC: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Has the lack of a recommended practice in the core RDF specifications,
for representing unary predicates caused problems for anyone?  Also,
what approaches have been used for representing unary predicates?

Brian

Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 
> The spec explains how to deal with relationships > 3 (rdf:value) but not
> those < 3 (i.e. two). I'd like to suggest we introduce two new properties:
> 
> rdf:is
> rdf:isNot
> 
> This saves us from having to do something klugey like:
> 
> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:likesChocolate 0 .
> 
> and also allows RDF processors to know that it's part of two-valued logic
> and treat it properly.
> 
> --
> Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>|       The Info Network
>   <http://www.aaronsw.com>   |     <http://theinfo.org>
> AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| the way you want the web to be
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 05:27:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:27 GMT