- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:41:11 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, connolly@w3.org
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>Dan, > >Could you explain in a bit more detail what you're asking for? >I'm having trouble understanding how an 'rdfs:triviallyTrue' >predicate might work. > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0085.html > >>Consider adding to RDFS a triviallyTrue predicate; >>specification: >> >> ?S rdfs:triviallyTrue ?O. >> >>is true for all ?S and ?O. >> >>Rationale: >> >>(1) jeremy's digital signature application needs >>to number bnodes >> >>(2) folks are asking for all uses of rdfs:comment >>to be vacuously true. This would provide that >>functionality. > >In particular, I don't yet understand how this would relate to >the rdfs:comment concern. Is the idea that it should be >impossible to assert something false with an rdfs:comment >in the predicate role of a statement? > >(in which case, trivially true seems to be a class of >properties...?) Good point. How about having TriviallyTrue be a class of properties? Entailment: ?P rdf:type rdf:TriviallyTrue . |- ?S ?P ?O . ? The problem for Ian might be that this couldn't be an OWL-DL property. But this is starting to seem kind of silly to me, to be honest. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 15:41:22 UTC