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

RE: Semantics was RE: weekly call for agenda items

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:39:54 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021025133211.0d81f438@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.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>

At 14:13 25/10/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> > >1:[[
> > >
> > >eg:prop rdfs:range eg:A .
> > >eg:A rdfs:subClassOf eg:B .
> > >
> > >entails
> > >
> > >eg:prop rdfs:range eg:B .
> > >]]
> >
>Brian:
> > Wierd!

Ah, thanks for this.  I was wrong earlier.  The intersection semantics 
still apply.  In my earlier example, I was thinking that given

   IEXT(A) = {a}
   IEXT(B) = {a, b}

then b became a legitimate value of prop.  That is wrong, yes?

Is there a reason why we would care?

Is the course allowing max flexibility not to have it.  If webont want it 
they can add it.  If we do it and they don't want it, they can't take it away.

Brian
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 08:37:34 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:31 EDT