- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:03:01 -0500
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Actually, when I first saw this proposal to use "type", I thought of Pat's alternative as possibly being better. The question is, what significance do we attach to identifying something as a "type"? --Frank Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > >>-----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 > > -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 09:01:32 UTC