- 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.)Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 14:29:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:19 UTC