Re: How to state simple facts in RDF

* Brian McBride
| 
| The other option at the time was a binary valued relation e.g.
| 
|   Eg:company eg:isBankrupt "true"^^xsd:boolean .

Now that is a workable alternative, and one that is much preferrable
to defining rdftm:True, since it doesn't require specific vocabulary.

It seems to me that translating RDF statements of the form

  :x :y "true"^^xsd:boolean .

into something along the lines of

  :y(:x : _____) /* need to supply role type here, but that's doable */

is semantically safe, and also syntax-preserving. The same goes for
the reverse translation.

The problem, of course, is what to translate

  :x :y "false"^^xsd:boolean .

to, since there is a difference between explicitly knowing that :x is
not bankrupt, and not knowing. It's conceivable that we might solve
this with scope, but I am not sure.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >