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

Re: range, domain: Conjunctive AND disjunctive semantics both supportable

From: Jeen Broekstra <jbroeks@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:49:54 +0200 (CEST)
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, rdf interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0010041541390.12600-100000@flits.cs.vu.nl>
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Graham Klyne wrote:

[snip]

> I'm currently digesting your OIL-in-RDFS paper ("Adding formal
> semantics to the Web" -- sorry, have lost URL) , which looks
> very interesting.

Can't resist the plugging opportunity ;)

http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/papers/extending-rdfs.html
http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/extending-rdfs.pdf

> Unless I'm wrong again (quite likely), I note that conjunctive
> semantics for domain would mess up your proposed definition for
> <oil:hasOperand>, but I guess that's easy to fix.

You're right, however this should be reasonably easy to fix by
either simply making the domain #ClassExpression (which would,
admittedly, make the intended restriction somewhat weak), or by
introducing a BooleanClassExpression placeholder.

> PS:  I think the paper has a typo in Figure 4:  I think the
> second "class-def plant" should be "class-def branch".

You're right again. Thanks for pointing that out.

Regards,

Jeen
-- 
                               Vrije Universiteit, Faculty of Sciences
Jeen Broekstra              Division of Mathematics & Computer Science
jbroeks@cs.vu.nl                                    de Boelelaan 1081a
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~jbroeks        1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 09:49:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT