- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:00:14 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I don't oppose the proposal, but I'd like to note that there's an
alternative approach, also not requiring any new vocabulary.
A Boolean valued property could be regarded as equivalent to a monadic
predicate;
e.g. (IsLikeThis(SomeResource) == TRUE) <=> IsLikeThis(SomeResource)
Treatments of typed logic that I have read (notably Sowa's book Knowledge
Representation) suggest that a type is just a shorthand for a value that
satisfies a monadic predicate:
(FORALL (x:integer) (EXISTS (y:integer) y > x))
is equivalent to:
(FORALL (x) integer(x) => (EXISTS (y) integer(y) AND y>x))
Which leads to the idea that Boolean valued properties are simply monadic
predicates which can be represented as types:
X rdf:type integer .
asserts the truth of:
integer(X)
#g
--
At 07:05 PM 11/14/01 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>Issue
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-properties
>
>requests a standard way to represent boolean valued properties and
>suggests the definition of rdf:is and rdf:isNot properties to meet this need.
>
>Propose that as schema data types define a boolean data value, this issue
>be merged with:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes
>
>Brian
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 16:10:59 UTC