W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2001

RDF Issue rdfs-domain-and-range

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 14:18:23 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011118141356.00a91d58@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: mcaklein@cs.vu.nl
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Michel,

In

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0045.html

you raised an issue with the RDF Schema candidate recommendation which was 
captured in

   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-domain-and-range

as

[[[

Summary: Ontology languages such as OIL permit multiple range restrictions 
on a property. If they are to be built on top of RDF Schema, they require 
the same flexibility. There has been further discussion on how multiple 
range constraints should be interpretted. Conjunctive semantics requires 
that a property is constrained by the conjunction (and) of its range 
constraints; disjunctive semantics require that the property is constrained 
by the disjunction (or) of its range constraints. It has also been 
suggested that the semantics of domain constraints be revisted, as 
development experience has shown the current semantics of domain not to be 
useful for inference. Further, some symmetry between rdfs:domain and 
rdfs:range would be expected since the domain of a property is the range of 
its inverse and vice versa.

]]]

As minuted in

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#decisions

the RDFCore WG has resolved that

Multiple domain and range constraints are permissable and will have 
conjunctive semantics and this issue is now closed.

Please could you reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org, 
indicating whether this descision resolves your issue.

Brian McBride
RDFCore co-chair
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2001 09:18:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:29 GMT