W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: RDF Schema discussion for F2F day 2: domain/range notes, model theory

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:38:19 +0100
Message-Id: <>
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?


Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2001 12:51:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:50 UTC