W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

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

From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:32:35 +0600
To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>
Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFAEDODCAA.danny@panlanka.net>
<- > rdf:is
<- > rdf:isNot

isn't this delving into the same space (negation etc) that the logic guys
have been worrying about?

---
Danny Ayers
http://www.isacat.net

<- -----Original Message-----
<- From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
<- [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian McBride
<- Sent: 16 April 2001 03:55
<- To: Aaron Swartz
<- Cc: RDF Interest; RDF Comments
<- Subject: Re: Spec doesn't talk about two-valued relationships
<-
<-
<- Hi Aaron,
<-
<- This has been added to this issues list as:
<-
<-
<- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-properties
<-
<- 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 Monday, 16 April 2001 02:36:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT