- From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:18:12 +0100
- To: "Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@ontopia.net>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
This question came up in RDFCore. The suggestion at the time was to use rdf:type, e.g. Eg::company rdf:type eg:BankruptCompany . Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lars > Marius Garshol > Sent: 27 June 2005 15:00 > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Subject: How to state simple facts in RDF > > > > In the work of the RDFTM task force the issue of how simple > facts are represented in RDF has come up, since the task > force needs to find a way to express such facts in RDF. > > It's probably not clear what I'm talking of here, but > examples are statements like "this case is closed", "this > company is bankrupt", "this article is a draft", and so on. > > How do people usually express this in RDF, and what is the "best" way? > The task force thought of several alternatives, but would be > interested to hear what the best practice is, if there is > one, and what individuals think, if there is no best practice. > > -- > Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > > GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: > http://www.garshol.priv.no > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2005 08:18:22 UTC