RDF Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties from Brian McBride on 2002-02-18 (www-rdf-comments@w3.org from January to March 2002) (original) (raw)

Aaron,

You raised an issue which was captured in

http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-properties

as

[[[ No standard vocabulary is defined for representing boolean valued properties. The author of this suggestion proposes the introduction of two new properties, rdf:is and rdf:isNot. To represent the fact that someone likes chocolate, their resource could have the property rdf:is with a value of foo:ChocolateLover. ]]]

As recorded in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html

the RDFCore WG has decided

The WG notes that since a boolean-valued property can be identified with a class, rdf:type can be used to represent boolean valued properties. Thus:

  <foo> <chocolateLover> <true> .
  <foo> <rdf:chocolateHater> <true> .

can be represented by

  <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateLover> .
  <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateHater> .

The WG notes that RDF(S) defines no built in mechanism for expressing that ChocolateLover and ChocolateHater are disjoint classes. The WEBONT WG are defining mechanisms for such expressions.

The WG resolves to close this issue.

Please could you respond to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of this issue.

Brian McBride RDFCore co-chair

Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 12:34:44 UTC