- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:46:52 +0100
- To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 08:45 PM 6/14/02 -0500, patrick hayes wrote: >>>One way to rule things like this out, if someone wanted to do that, >>>would be: >>> >>><rdfs:range> <rdfs:subPropertyOf> < rdfd:rangedatatype> . >> >>Isn't that potentially non-monotonic? (I think this is a general problem >>with making additional assertions about core RDF vocabulary.) > >I don't quite see how. It would certainly be rather a dangerous thing to >assert in general, which is why I was only half-serious, but I think it >would be monotonic. I hope so, anyway. Can you give more details? You have >me worried. It's been a busy week, and I've lost my context. I think I may have got myself confused about the "direction" of monotonicity here. My concerns were that expectations about the meaning of "basic" RDF constructs may be confounded. <aside> My recollection is that I was considering the effect of such an addition on a subgraph like: <ex:Jenny> <ex:age> "10" . <ex:Joe> <ex:age> _:x . _:x <xsd:string> "10" . <ex:age> <rdfd:rangedatatype> <xsd:integer> . which may be true under some interpretation, but in the presence of the additional subProperty the enlarged subgraph could be false under the same interpretation. But I see that was just me confusing myself about monotonicity. </aside> #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 21 June 2002 11:30:59 UTC