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: <5.1.0.14.2.20010729143541.03b3c2b0@joy.songbird.com>
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 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:18 EDT