W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Handling multiple rdfs:ranges

From: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 12:25:22 +0000
Message-Id: <8B99CD3D-B436-4B59-A345-D49AE5AEFE2A@glasers.org>
To: SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Thanks all, I find myself really enjoying this discussion.
(Well, in a sort of hair-shirt way!)

> On 29 Feb 2016, at 15:09, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> 
> On 02/29/2016 03:50 AM, Reto Gmür wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016, at 03:04, David Booth wrote:
>>> On 02/26/2016 06:04 AM, Reto Gmür wrote:
>>>> Sure, still I think that schema:rangeIncludes is not meaningless (as it
>>>> restricts the rdfs:range statements that are possible) and that
>>> 
>>> Under the standard open world assumption (OWA) I do not think it is
>>> correct to say schema:rangeIncludes *restricts* anything.  Bear in mind
>>> that given the statement:
>>> 
>>>    :p schema:rangeIncludes :Cat .
>>> 
>>> one could always add an arbitrary additional class to the property's
>>> "expected type(s)" by adding another statement like:
>>> 
>>>   :p schema:rangeIncludes :Dog .
>>> 
>>> Therefore, the original statement cannot be *restricting* anything
>>> (under the OWA).
>> 
>> I did not say that it restricts the possible values of the properties,
>> but I'm saying that it restricts the possible rdfs:range statements that
>> are possible without creating a contradiction.
> 
> Yes, I guess that's true.  For any class :C, if :C owl:disjointWith :Cat then it would not be possible to declare :p rdfs:range :C without creating a contradiction.  So in that sense it limits the subsequent rdfs:range statements that can be made.
> 
> David Booth
> 
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:25:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:25:55 UTC