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

Re: Semantics was RE: weekly call for agenda items

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:11:32 +0200
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7DC3AA55.54D5ACA0-ONC1256C5D.00315CEF-C1256C5D.0032803C@agfa.be>

>>I guess it's the one from
>>eg:prop rdfs:range eg:A .
>>eg:A rdfs:subClassOf eg:B .
>>eg:prop rdfs:range eg:B .
>Which looks clearly false to me, so I'd better ask to find out what I'm

I don't support it either, but it could make sense
to have IFF (if and only if) semantics such that
Range(P,C) iff (forall x,y P(x,y) -> C(x))
and in that case rdfs:Resource would for instance
be the range of any property

>   IEXT(A) = {a}
>   IEXT(B) = {a, b}
>Then if I say that prop can take any member of A as its value, it can also

>take any member of B, because B happens to be a superclass of B.
>Isn't it to stop that sort of thing happening that we switched domain and
>range to conjunctive semantics, i.e. so that an inferencing engine finding

>a range constraint would know that all values must be a member of that
>class; there is no way to add members to the range?

well, it all depends on the chosen semantics for range
and I support the oneway IF as well

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 05:13:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:01 UTC