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

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

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:22:52 +0000 (GMT)
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0103101121450.7842-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> 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...

Well, you could have an equivalent class to "everything" that was the
disjoint superclass of "X" and "notX".


-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Donate a signature: http://tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/~cmjg/sig-submit
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2001 06:25:06 GMT

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