- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 07:35:05 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > E.g. how is the following pair to be interpreted: > > <http://www.aaronsw.com/> rdf:is bob:ChocolateLover; > rdf:isNot bob:ChocolateLover. But Graham, it doesn't necessarily have to be "interpreted". Just the following: <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:doesntLike :chocholate ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:likes :chocholate . will work just fine in parsers. It's true that rdf:type gets close to this, but there is a general need for negation in this case, even without getting into logic and all that. If we don't add these properties, I think we'll see a ton of: <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:chocolateLover "0" . which is nowhere near as useful. -- Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| SWAG: Semantic Web Agreement Group <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://purl.org/swag/> AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| helping build the next web
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 08:34:37 UTC