- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 28 Apr 2003 10:41:25 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1051544485.2632.925.camel@dirk.dm93.org>
On Fri, 2003年04月25日 at 14:41, pat hayes wrote: > >Dan, > > > >Could you explain in a bit more detail what you're asking for? > >I'm having trouble understanding how an 'rdfs:triviallyTrue' > >predicate might work. You're thinking too hard, Danbri. It's just a predicate where every possible statement using this predicate is true. > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0085.html > > > >>Consider adding to RDFS a triviallyTrue predicate; > >>specification: > >> > >> ?S rdfs:triviallyTrue ?O. > >> > >>is true for all ?S and ?O. > >> > >>Rationale: > >> > >>(1) jeremy's digital signature application needs > >>to number bnodes He seems to be content working with existing mechanisms. > >>(2) folks are asking for all uses of rdfs:comment > >>to be vacuously true. This would provide that > >>functionality. > > > >In particular, I don't yet understand how this would relate to > >the rdfs:comment concern. Is the idea that it should be > >impossible to assert something false with an rdfs:comment > >in the predicate role of a statement? No, but to the folks who want that to be the case, we tell them "don't use comment for that; use triviallyTrue". perhaps rdfs:note would be a good name for it. or rdfs:fyi. > >(in which case, trivially true seems to be a class of > >properties...?) > > Good point. How about having TriviallyTrue be a class of properties? That's more complicated than what I'm asking for. > Entailment: > > ?P rdf:type rdf:TriviallyTrue . > > |- > > ?S ?P ?O . > > ? The problem for Ian might be that this couldn't be an OWL-DL property. > > But this is starting to seem kind of silly to me, to be honest. > > Pat -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 11:41:08 UTC