- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:36:41 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: > We can then transfer negated statements via RDF, but RDF will > get in the way by providing its own (incompatible) meaning for the triples > that encode negation. It would be much better if RDF would stay out of the > way, and not provide any meaning for these triples, but that is not within > the philosophy of RDF. I've heard this argument before (from you, I'm pretty sure), and I believe it is simply false. You're forgetting reification. Saying negation, truth, etc. works just fine in RDF. Simply reify. Here's how it would be in XRDF: <rdf:Description> <negation rdf:resource="#s" </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#s"> <rdf:subject rdf:resource="mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com" /> <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="http://example.org/confusedAbout" /> <rdf:object>reification</rdf:object> </rdf:Description> Or in English: The thing that is the negation of the triple {mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com confusedAbout "reification}. I think N3 does it like this: [ :negation { <mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com> :confusedAbout "reification" .} ] There is no problem. Since refication is used, RDF does not assert the negated triple. Instead, it is merely in "quotes" and no meaning is assigned. All I know is that you mentioned the statement, but I do not know that you have asserted it. The solution to "or" is similar (I believe "or" is what you asked about last time). Does this solve the flaw you see? -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2001 20:37:30 UTC