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

RE: RDFCore Update

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:01:07 -0400
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: devon@taller.pscl.cwru.edu, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011018180107F.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Subject: RE: RDFCore Update
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:12:41 +0300

[...]

> This ambiguity about whether rdfs:range is descriptive or
> prescriptive (or both) was pointed out recently in a post
> by Ora Lassila, and perhaps could be addressed in conjunction 
> with standardized methodologies/mechanisms for data typing.

I don't know how you could handle a prescriptive meaning for rdfs:range in
an open environment.  You certainly can't say that the target object has to
belong to the range when the triple is read because there is no notion of
order in RDF.  All other prescriptive readings result in non-monotonicity,
which is not a good idea in the web, IMNSHO.

By the way, the model theory firmly comes down on the descriptive side, as
do (almost) all reasonable model theories.

> Cheers,
> 
> Patrick

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2001 18:01:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT