- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:28:05 +0000
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- CC: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Has the lack of a recommended practice in the core RDF specifications, for representing unary predicates caused problems for anyone? Also, what approaches have been used for representing unary predicates? Brian Aaron Swartz wrote: > > The spec explains how to deal with relationships > 3 (rdf:value) but not > those < 3 (i.e. two). I'd like to suggest we introduce two new properties: > > rdf:is > rdf:isNot > > This saves us from having to do something klugey like: > > <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:likesChocolate 0 . > > and also allows RDF processors to know that it's part of two-valued logic > and treat it properly. > > -- > Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| The Info Network > <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://theinfo.org> > AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| the way you want the web to be
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 05:27:03 UTC