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

First of all, we do not have trouble with unary predicates when using
rdf:type or n3's "a" such as
  hp:Brian a w3c:co-chair

> rdf:type; create a "predicate" class whose members have the appropriate
> property.

> > rdf:isNot

> Yikes! Boom. That was the sound of the semantic web blowing up :-) This
> leads to non-monotonicity, which doesn't sit particularly well with the
> RDF worldview, as far as I can tell (no doubt the daml/oil people may
> say differently)

Well, I'm not so sure if it's that easy to blow up ...
One can look to so called "negation-verbs" just like to any other predicate.
See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Mar/0043.html

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/