- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:39:30 +0100
- To: Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk
- Cc: aswartz@upclink.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
First of all, we do not have trouble with unary predicates when using rdf:type or n3's "a" such as hp:Brian a w3c:co-chair > rdf:type; create a "predicate" class whose members have the appropriate > property. > > rdf:isNot > Yikes! Boom. That was the sound of the semantic web blowing up :-) This > leads to non-monotonicity, which doesn't sit particularly well with the > RDF worldview, as far as I can tell (no doubt the daml/oil people may > say differently) Well, I'm not so sure if it's that easy to blow up ... One can look to so called "negation-verbs" just like to any other predicate. See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Mar/0043.html -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 06:40:06 UTC