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

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

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:53:15 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Cc: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

At 07:35 AM 3/9/01 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>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
><http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:doesntLike :chocholate ;
><http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:likes :chocholate .
>will work just fine in parsers.

Technically, I think this is all quite correct.  However, I think that 
introducing the syntax without a (compelling) interpretation would be to 
risk increasing confusion levels.

>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.

I think that's where DAML-ONT (or whatever it's called these days) comes in 
to play.

>  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.

Why less useful?   I think you can make just as many inferences from 
statements like this.  Maybe even more, because you'd be using a 
domain-specific property with possibility for more precise domain/range 

(I admit it doesn't look as intuitive.)


Graham Klyne
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 10:58:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:35 UTC