W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: missing (and incorrect) RDFS axioms

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:32:49 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b36b9f24c26e6ec@[65.217.30.130]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>

>On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 13:40, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  > rdf:object	rdfs:range  rdfs:Resource .		*
>>
>>  ...did we agree that all literals are resources?
>
>regardless, it's redundant to say range Resource.
>Please let's don't.

Well, strictly its not actually *redundant*, since range has 'if' 
semantics. So for example if we don't say that the range of 
rdf:object is rdfs:Resource, it is quite possible for rdf:object to 
not have ANY range. There are no closure rules that conclude a range 
assertion, note. Are you OK with that?  I am, myself, but I can see 
that it might seem odd to some customers. And I guess that it would 
be OK to err on the side of redundancy.

I was leaning towards putting those rdfs:Resource ranges in, in fact, 
together with a note that they produce no useful conclusions but are 
put in just for completeness' sake. It wouldn't require your engines 
to do anything new, and after all these rules aren't meant to be 
process rules.

Comments?

Pat



>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 00:32:31 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:01 EDT