RE: rdfs:Property rdfs:range questions

> Your explanation and pointers made this clear; there is no point in two
> dissjoint ranges. Actually it was rather silly from my part because my
> two ranges are not dissjoint after all; I was trying to create a
> measurment toolkit, where objects could be either a resource or a
> literal; at first i used multiple (two) ranges, rdfs:Resource and
> rdfs:Literal.

IIRC OWL allows you to have statements closer to your original intent (i.e.
you can define a range as being the union of two classes, hence allowing you
to define a range that allows members of two or more disjoint classes to be
used).