Re: Issue #danc-04 add a triviallyTrue predicate

>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.
>>Consider adding to RDFS a triviallyTrue predicate;
>>    ?S rdfs:triviallyTrue ?O.
>>is true for all ?S and ?O.
>>(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
>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

Good point. How about having TriviallyTrue be a class of properties? 

?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.


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	   for spam

Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 15:41:22 UTC