W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2002

RDF Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:33:09 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020218172655.06fd7b40@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Aaron,

You raised an issue which was captured in

   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-properties

as

[[[
No standard vocabulary is defined for representing boolean valued 
properties. The author of this suggestion proposes the introduction of two 
new properties, rdf:is and rdf:isNot. To represent the fact that someone 
likes chocolate, their resource could have the property rdf:is with a value 
of foo:ChocolateLover.
]]]

As recorded in

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html

the RDFCore WG has decided

The WG notes that since a boolean-valued property can be identified with a 
class, rdf:type can be used to represent boolean valued properties. Thus:

      <foo> <chocolateLover> <true> .
      <foo> <rdf:chocolateHater> <true> .

can be represented by

      <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateLover> .
      <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateHater> .

The WG notes that RDF(S) defines no built in mechanism for expressing that 
ChocolateLover and ChocolateHater are disjoint classes.  The WEBONT WG are 
defining mechanisms for such expressions.

The WG resolves to close this issue.

Please could you respond to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org 
indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of this issue.

Brian McBride
RDFCore co-chair
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 12:34:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT