RE: MT RDFS closure rule bug?

> 
> >Pat,
> >
> >don't we need RDFS closure rules that add range and domain constraints
> >e.g.
> >
> >aaa [rdfs:range] yyy
> >yyy [rdfs:subClassOf] zzz
> >
> >then add
> >
> >aaa [rdfs:range] zzz
> >
> >
> >and similarly for rdfs:domain.
> 
> NO. That would be disastrous for the datatyping and in any case not 
> make sense. Why do want them?
> 
> 

We don't *want* them, they are just true!
Or maybe I've been talking to Peter too much!

Any interpretation of any 

> >aaa [rdfs:range] yyy
> >yyy [rdfs:subClassOf] zzz


is an interpretation of

> >aaa [rdfs:range] zzz


thus the closure rule holds.

(Not) Proof:

Ahh, it depends on rdfs:range not being in the domain of discourse.
neglecting that little factette and invalidating the proof ...

Whenever 
iii aaa jjj .
then
jjj [rdf:type] yyy .
hence
jjj [rdf:type] zzz .

hence

aaa [rdfs:range] zzz .

==

I smell danger.


Jeremy