- From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:32:35 +0600
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
<- > rdf:is <- > rdf:isNot isn't this delving into the same space (negation etc) that the logic guys have been worrying about? --- Danny Ayers http://www.isacat.net <- -----Original Message----- <- From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org <- [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian McBride <- Sent: 16 April 2001 03:55 <- To: Aaron Swartz <- Cc: RDF Interest; RDF Comments <- Subject: Re: Spec doesn't talk about two-valued relationships <- <- <- Hi Aaron, <- <- This has been added to this issues list as: <- <- <- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-properties <- <- 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 Monday, 16 April 2001 02:36:13 UTC