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 12:41:15 -0600
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CE7FE9.249B9%aswartz@upclink.com>
Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> wrote:

>> 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.

Perhaps we can add this to DAML -- I know they have disjoint, but I don't
think that's the same as opposite...

>> 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
> inferences.

Because a generic system doesn't know whether 0 means false, or an address,
or whatever.

-- 
Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>|           my.info
  <http://www.aaronsw.com>   |   <http://my.theinfo.org>
AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237|  the future of news, today
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 13:40:45 GMT

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