W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

RE: RDFS bug "A property can have at most one range property"

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:34:36 +0000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001209183304.00b73a50@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Cc: "Ora Lassila" <daml@lassila.org>, <timbl@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 11:18 PM 12/8/00 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>Since we are on this topic, what is the intended relationship between RDFS
>and DAML-ONT? Is DAML-ONT intended to be an extension of RDFS or a
>replacement for RDFS (i.e. what is the intended meaning of the
>'equivalentTo' arc as used by DAML-ONT w.r.t RDFS ?) It seems that an
>alternate way of defining DAML-ONT terms might have been proper subClassOf
>their corresponding RDFS terms, and if not, then perhaps RDFS is not
>sufficient for 'real world' work, no?

I hope it's not to be a "replacement".  I think that RDFS (suitably cleaned 
up) is probably sufficient for _some_ real-world work.  I understand 
DAML-ONT to be pushing into areas deliberately not covered by RDFS.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Sunday, 10 December 2000 10:19:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT