- From: Lee Jonas <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:24:39 -0000
- To: "'Aaron Swartz'" <aswartz@upclink.com>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Instead of <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:chocolateLover "0", how about defining a class called truth and two resources of type truth called "True" and "False" (i.e. the way the spec advocates doing enumerations)? Then it becomes: <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:chocolateLover <:True> or <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:chocolateLover <:False> Regards Lee -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:aswartz@upclink.com] Sent: 09 March 2001 18:41 To: Graham Klyne Cc: RDF Interest Subject: Re: Spec doesn't talk about two-valued relationships Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> wrote: >> 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. Perhaps we can add this to DAML -- I know they have disjoint, but I don't think that's the same as opposite... >> 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. Because a generic system doesn't know whether 0 means false, or an address, or whatever. -- Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| my.info <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://my.theinfo.org> AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| the future of news, today
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 05:25:11 UTC