W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Issue #danc-04 add a triviallyTrue predicate

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:41:11 -0500
Message-Id: <p05210605bacf3eb90960@[10.0.100.12]>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>Dan,
>
>Could you explain in a bit more detail what you're asking for?
>I'm having trouble understanding how an 'rdfs:triviallyTrue'
>predicate might work.
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0085.html
>
>>Consider adding to RDFS a triviallyTrue predicate;
>>specification:
>>
>>    ?S rdfs:triviallyTrue ?O.
>>
>>is true for all ?S and ?O.
>>
>>Rationale:
>>
>>(1) jeremy's digital signature application needs
>>to number bnodes
>>
>>(2) folks are asking for all uses of rdfs:comment
>>to be vacuously true. This would provide that
>>functionality.
>
>In particular, I don't yet understand how this would relate to
>the rdfs:comment concern. Is the idea that it should be
>impossible to assert something false with an rdfs:comment
>in the predicate role of a statement?
>
>(in which case, trivially true seems to be a class of
>properties...?)

Good point. How about having TriviallyTrue be a class of properties? 
Entailment:

?P rdf:type rdf:TriviallyTrue .

|-

?S ?P ?O .

? The problem for Ian might be that this couldn't be an OWL-DL property.

But this is starting to seem kind of silly to me, to be honest.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 15:41:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT