Re: Some thoughts on the semantics of domain and range (was: Re: RDFS bug "A property can have at most one range property")

Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:

>> This touched a raw nerve for me.  Our current implementation works on the
>> basis of disjunctive semantics for multiple rdfs:domain and ant:range
>> properties (the latter is our own specially recognised CostraintProperty
to
>> work around the fact that RDFS states that multiple rdfs:range properties
>> are illegal).
>
>Then how do you get around the non-monotonic implications of the
>disjunctive semantics?

If your question is specifically addressed to me, I am afraid I can't answer
it.  Our system is not (currently) interested in inference, merely accurate
modelling of semantics.  Also I am personally not from a logic / inference
background.

However, it would be better answered by Natalya who claimed:

"In fact, OKBC adopted the disjunctive semantics for domains and ranges of
slots (perhaps, for practical reasons), and it seemed to work well there."

see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0142.html

Cheers

Lee