W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: ACTION: 2001-11-16#7

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:40:45 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:04 14/02/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
>Brian McBride wrote:
>>   o. While this provides no way to express a negative (negated)
>>      boolean value, the addition of such an ability would extend
>>      RDF beyond its anticipated semantic basis, requiring
>>      unacceptably far-reaching changes.
>>   o. The WG resolves to close this issue on the grounds that the
>>      current facilities are adequate for all purposes that do not
>>      over-extend RDF.
>I have a mild amount of heartburn over the wording of these bullets; it's 
>not clear what they means, other than we don't intend to do anything more 
>about it.  Specifically:
>a.   what does "would extend RDF beyond its anticipated semantic basis, 
>requiring unacceptably far-reaching changes" mean (or, even more 
>specifically, what is RDF's "anticipated semantic basis")?  Could we be 
>more specific?  (Could we cite the charter?)

I think it means RDF doesn't support negation.

>b.  "the current facilities are adequate for all purposes that do not 
>over-extend RDF" sounds like bureaucratese for "the current facilities are 
>adequate for all purposes that do not require other facilities".
>I'd like for us to be more plain and straightforward about such 
>justifications if we can.
>Maybe I just need some more sleep (if I had some, or knew more about the 
>subject, maybe I'd concoct an alternative)

Well I guess that ought to be rule, - there ain't no objections without a 
counter proposal.

or alternately we could try a different tack and apply what I think of as 
"Connoly's Law"; if in trouble finding words, switch to test cases.

The WG resolves that:

Boolean valued properties can, in part, be expressed using rdf:type, for 

   <http://example/George> <rdf:type> <http://example/ChocolateLover> .
   <http://example/Thomas> <rdf:type> <http://example/ChocolateHater> .

The WG notes that RDF(S) defines no built in mechanism for expressing that 
ChocolateLover and ChocolateHater are disjoint classes.  The WEBONT WG
are defining mechanisms for such expressions.

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 09:42:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC