W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2001

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

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:30:30 -0000
Message-ID: <033a01c16ec4$7fc13b60$92dc93c3@localhost>
To: <tarod@softhome.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>   I don't know, but it will be a daml solution not a rdf
> solution, because there is no rdf problem with domains,
> at least, in my opinion.

Pardon me? I presume that by "rdf solution" you in fact mean "RDF
Schema". RDF Schema is a vocabularly built on top of the RDF model
with which one can create new languages, by defining what goes where.
DAML is very similar to this, except it's a bit (read: a lot) more
powerful, and it was defined by DARPA, rather than W3C.

Clearly, people take domains and ranges to be conjuntive; it is useful
to do so, and the content that you originally cited gives a good
reason (from TimBL) as to why they should be taken conjuntively, with
agreement by whoever was responding. I have further demonstrated that
by using DAML, you can still create unions of classes, and use them as
domains or ranges. The only difference in the two approaches is that
now, when you want to declare constraints as intersections, you end up
with less triples than if you wanted to do the same using unions. But
so what? :-)

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 12:31:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:38 UTC