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

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

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 07:35:05 -0600
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CE3828.2495D%aswartz@upclink.com>
Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> E.g. how is the following pair to be interpreted:
> 
> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> rdf:is    bob:ChocolateLover;
>                           rdf:isNot bob:ChocolateLover.

But Graham, it doesn't necessarily have to be "interpreted". Just the
following:

<http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:doesntLike :chocholate ;
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:likes :chocholate .

will work just fine in parsers. It's true that rdf:type gets close to this,
but there is a general need for negation in this case, even without getting
into logic and all that. If we don't add these properties, I think we'll see
a ton of:

<http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:chocolateLover "0" .

which is nowhere near as useful.

-- 
Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>|  SWAG: Semantic Web Agreement Group
  <http://www.aaronsw.com>   |       <http://purl.org/swag/>
AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237|     helping build the next web
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 08:34:37 GMT

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