Divergences between RDF Semantics and RDF Schema

- Schema states ``Each instance of rdfs:Datatype is a subclass of
  rdfs:Literal'', but this is only a consequence of D-interpretations, not
  RDFS-interpretations.

- Schema states ``rdf:XMLLiteral is an instance of rdfs:Datatype and a
  subclass of rdfs:Literal''.   The second part of this is not even a
  consequence of D-interpretations.

- Schema states 
	``The rdfs:domain of rdf:type is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:label is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:comment is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:comment is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:member is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:member is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:first is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:range of rdf:subject is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:range of rdf:resource is rdf:Property.'' 
	``The rdfs:range of rdf:object is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:seeAlso is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:seeAlso is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:isDefinedBy is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:isDefinedBy is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:value is rdfs:Resource.'' 
	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:value is rdfs:Resource.'' 
  but none of these are consequences of RDFS-interpretations.  (Well,
  actually Semantics is vague about most of these, as there is a vague
  addendum to the conditions on RDFS-interpretations that indicates that
  some domain and range assertions ``may be taken to be rdfs:Resource''.
  In my view this vagueness is inappropriate for the definition of
  RDFS-interpretations.)