W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Re[2]: Modelling Resumes in RDF(S) - work in progress

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 09:30:41 -0400
To: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-id: <005201c20d5e$5ab678b0$f6193044@tbp>

[Patrick Stickler]

>
> On 2002-06-06 14:08, "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > At 11:52 AM 6/6/02 +0200, Uldis Bojars wrote:
> >> Another unclear question is defining boolean values.
> >> Are there some standard "TRUE" and "FALSE" or "YES" and "NO" URIs to
> >> use?
> >
> > Something like this was discussed a while ago, and my recollection of
the
> > general consensus was that rdf:type can be used for describing
true/false
> > values by casting the property concerned as a class;  e.g. the intent
of:
> >
> >   Fred isChocolateLover 'true' .
> >
> > can be expressed as:
> >
> >   Fred rdf:type ChocolateLover .
> >
> > #g
>
> This is true. Or, err
>
>   "" rdf:type True .
>
 But does it really amount to the same thing?  With TRUE/FALSE, you can say
"I definitely know that Fred is NOT a ChocolateLover" (poor Fred, what he's
missing!).  Without it, you have to infer "I can't find anything that says
that Fred IS a ChocolateLover, so he must not be one".

Isn't this this similar to the existential stataus of a bnode, whose
existence has to be inferred because it is connected to other nodes?  Most
people are saying that there really is a difference between such a node and
an identified resource.  So how is it that inferring FALSE is suppsed to be
the same as asserting it?

Cheers,

Tom P
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 09:30:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT