- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:38:19 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 12:55 AM 7/28/01 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
>My reading of the RDF mailing list discussions around range and domain is
>that the dominant view amongst RDF Schema implementors is in favour of
>redefining rdfs:domain so that we can conclude "type(songlines,Book)"
>when we see "domain(author,Book), author(songlines,chatwin)". As I say,
>I've been buried under the existing RDF Core traffic (anonymous nodes etc)
>so haven't assembled an overwhelming case for this claim. (WG members in
>favour of the current definition should make their views known!)
I agree.
Is there anyone in the group who does NOT believe that multiple ranges and
domains should be allowed and that they all must be satisfied?
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2001 12:51:33 UTC