- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:08:58 +0100
- To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > >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
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 05:09:23 UTC