W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Challenge for RDF Gurus :)

From: <tarod@softhome.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:10:43 GMT
Message-ID: <20020214151043.28546.qmail@softhome.net>
To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

  Good try but I must say that it's not 100% what I asked for because for
the range issue you use

  Class C
  A is subClassOf C
  B is subClassOf C

  And then c range is C. It's a good aproach but it's not logically
correct, you are saying that range of c is (C or A or B) and I asked for
range of c should be (A or B)

  Now try it with the old aproach it's easier.

  Good luck,
            Marc

Seth Russell writes:

> How about this?
> 
> http://robustai.net/mentography/rdfs_domain_range2.gif
> 
> Seth Russell
> 
> ----in response to---
> From: <tarod@softhome.net>
> 
> >   Just for playing.
> > 
> >   if you followed the mails between Brian McBride and I, you will know
> > about the different semantics for range and domain properties.
> > 
> >   His proposal is the official, mine is just what I think it should be
> > (just me)
> > 
> >   So, I wanted to propose to the 'gurus' a little challenge
> > 
> >   Try to represent that in rdf schema 
> > 
> >   Class A
> >   Class B
> >   
> >   property c(range(A or B), domain(A and B))
> > 
> >   using both semantics (disjoint, conjuntion)
> >   of course you can add as many classes and properties you need and the
> > relations between them you need.
> > 
> >   Thanks for your time,
> >                        Marc
> 
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:07:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:53 GMT