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


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 [] 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:35 PM
To: Joshua Allen;
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"




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




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

	From: Joshua Allen <>  


	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


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


	I want to use:


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


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

Received on Monday, 14 March 2005 05:48:41 UTC