- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:44:32 -0600
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.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? ;-) I sincerely hope that we cannot express negation in RDF. If we ever become able to, then I will need to re-write the MT. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 14:44:12 UTC