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

Re: less-restrictive range and domain terms

From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sf.net>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:47:33 +0100
Message-ID: <16535.58693.621812.470746@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, pdawes@users.sourceforge.net, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hi Benja, Hi Peter,

Benja Fallenstein writes:
 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 > Hash: SHA1
 > 
 > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
 > |>I've recently found myself wanting a less-restrictive version of
 > |>rdfs:range (or owl:allValuesFrom) and rdfs:domain. I want to say
 > |>'property *can* have range of class foo' rather than 'property *must*
 > |>have range of class foo'.
 > |
 > | Hmm.
 > |
 > | First of all, there is no 'property *must* have range of class foo' in RDF
 > | or OWL.  All there is is ``property *has* range class foo''.
 > |
 > | Second, what do you mean by 'property *may* have range of class foo'?
 > 
 > "There exist triples with property P and an object of class foo," rather
 > than "All triples with property P have objects of class foo," is a
 > useful interpretation, I presume.
 > 

Yep - that's what I meant. Sorry for not being clear.

Cheers,

Phil
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 15:48:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:07 GMT