RE: true/false in RDF?

Yeah, that's what I intended to express with my first example - if you
use a literal, the literal is absolutely meaningless without type
information.

 

Why not just use URIs which mean "true" and "false" and do away with
typing?  The only advantages I can see for typing are imaginary (compile
time/run-time checks?!?!) and the disadvantage is real.

 

________________________________

From: Jeremy Wong [mailto:jeremy@miko.hk] 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:35 PM
To: Joshua Allen; semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: Re: true/false in RDF?

 

I am not too familar with N3 notation about datatype, therefore I
provide my example in RDF/XML

 

<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://foobar/page.html"
xmlns:myterms="urn:myterms">

  <myterms:isCached
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLSchema#boolean">true</myterms:isCa
ched>

</rdf:Description>

 

We have typed literal already. Why do you still consider object value?

 

 

Jeremy

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Joshua Allen <mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com>  

	To: semantic-web@w3.org 

	Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 12:16 PM

	Subject: true/false in RDF?

	 

	I've decided that I want to use URI object values for my Boolean
triples, rather than the literals "true/false".  In other words, instead
of:

	 

	http://foobar/page.html  urn:myterms:isCached   "true"

	 

	I want to use:

	 

	http://foobar/page.html  urn:myterms:isCached
http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/true

	 

	I can find zero examples of the latter; only the former.  But I
think the latter is right.  Why am I wrong?