- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:53:15 +0000
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Cc: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Aaron, At 07:35 AM 3/9/01 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote: >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. Technically, I think this is all quite correct. However, I think that introducing the syntax without a (compelling) interpretation would be to risk increasing confusion levels. >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. I think that's where DAML-ONT (or whatever it's called these days) comes in to play. > 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. Why less useful? I think you can make just as many inferences from statements like this. Maybe even more, because you'd be using a domain-specific property with possibility for more precise domain/range inferences. (I admit it doesn't look as intuitive.) #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 10:58:26 UTC