W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2004

WG: Cases in the new specification of RDF Schema

From: Kianoush Eshaghi <Kianoush.Eshaghi@metadat.at>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:13:30 +0200
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000801c44f9c$be9a4410$480a0a0a@metadat.metadat.at>

> 2. A Property would own multiple domains and rangs. It would like such
> as following:
> <rdf:Property rdf:about="a">
> 	<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#A"/>
> 	<rdfs:range    rdf:resource="#B"/>
> 	<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#C"/>
> 	<rdfs:range    rdf:resource="#D"/>
> 	...
> 	...
> </rdf:Property>

And this, but it probably doesnt mean what you think it does. It would
make anything that was in the domain of 'a' a member of #A and #C.

My RDF Schema should assert that the domain of 'a' must contain only
members of #A and #C, and the range of 'a' must contain only members of
#B and #D.

> 3. I define some relationships between resources via rdfs:Property.
> I like to know, wether RDF Schema should accept transitive closure,
> there is in mathematics such as  X ~ Y AND Y~Z  ----> X ~Z
> (if RDF accepts multiple domains and rangs) For example:

No, you need to go to OWL for that.

i.e. I can use the RDF Schema without solicitude that this transitive
effect will NOT occur.

Received on Friday, 11 June 2004 06:13:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:51 UTC