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: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:34:35 -0500
Message-ID: <015101c06387$e052a020$6401a8c0@CREST>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>, "Ora Lassila" <daml@lassila.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I see DAML-ONT as natural extension of RDF-S.  Whether for simplicity
one defines synonyms in the DAML namesapce for RDFS proerties is
a question which is open.  I understand the coinsensus is for the moment
not to.  I find when authoring things by hand it is a  pain to have to
use seperate rdf: and rdfs: and ont: namespaces, but some said their
software
didn't handle coreference well enough to pepper the world with synonyms.
I'm not very fussy about it at present myself.

As for the rdfs:range property, I regard it just as a bug.  As it is written
it is formally
meaningless, so I am just using rdfs:range in the expectation that the bug
will
be fixed.

Tim without hat

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
To: "Ora Lassila" <daml@lassila.org>; <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:18 PM
Subject: RE: RDFS bug "A property can have at most one range property"


> 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?
>
> Jonathan Borden
> The Open Healthcare Group
> http://www.openhealth.org
>
> Ora Lassila wrote:
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > sorry, I missed this when it was first posted.
> >
> > Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> > >  in that it says that "A property can have at most one range property.
"
> > > This basically doens't mean anything on the web.
> >
> > Yes, this is a bug, and having to reconvene the RDFS WG (since this is
> > not a mere editorial change) is an obstacle for pushing RDFS forward in
> > the W3C process.
> >
> > > (Why haven't I spotted that before? I guess just skipped over range
and
> > > domain
> > > assuming they had their normal meanings).
> >
> > I have a distinct recollection that you and I had lengthy discussions
> > about this last spring.
> >
> > Anyway, I fear that this bug is related to a greater problem in RDFS
> > which begs to be addressed: properties of properties (such as range)
> > should be defined on a per-class basis - kinda tricky in our
> > property-centric approach.
> >
> > > Please remove the offending wording from the spec.
> >
> > As I said, we need to "rehydrate" the WG to do this.
> >
> > - Ora
> >
> > --
> > Ora Lassila <daml@lassila.org> +1 (781) 993-4603
> >
>
Received on Monday, 11 December 2000 10:35:09 GMT

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