- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:05:28 +0200
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu] > Sent: 15 November, 2001 04:25 > To: Brian McBride > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties > > > >Issue > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-p > roperties > > > >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 > > Hmm, not sure I agree. That is one way to do it, but another would be > to say that a boolean-valued property should be identified with a > class; the property is true of aaa iff aaa is in the class. The > example of ChocolateLover certainly suggests this to me. Then rdf:is > would be rdf:type. I think I also prefer this rdf:type approach, but the question arises, how does one express explicit negation? rdf:notType? ;-) Patrick
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 06:06:10 UTC