Re: less-restrictive range and domain terms

Hi Peter,

Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:
 > > 
 > > how about:
 > > 
 > > x:schnak rdfs:range aoeuii
 > > =====>
 > > x:schnak phil:rangeIncludes aoeuii
 > 
 > Perhaps, but this doesn't follow from the intuitive meaning that you said
 > you were thinking of.  Either the intuitive meaning or the inference rule
 > are wrong. 
 > 

I'm not sure I understand. I'd like to write some software that offers
hints to the user about what types of objects can be used in triples
  subj x:schnak ?

If I can infer the following at the store level:
  x:schnak rdfs:range aoeuii --> x:schnak phil:rangeIncludes aoeuii

then my client just needs to query for 
   (xschnak phil:rangeIncludes ?typehint)
to pick information from the  rdfs schema as well.


 > > and maybe (if we're adopting 'range might feasibly include'
 > > semantics):
 > > 
 > > x:schnak rdfs:range aoeuii
 > > baoeu rdfs:subClassOf aoeuii
 > > =====>
 > > x:schnak phil:rangeIncludes baoeu
 > 
 > This is even worse.  

Again, I don't understand why. (although it does have less utility).

 > 
 > > and then there's the owl ones:
 > > 
 > > owl:Class rdfs:subClassOf [a owl:Restriction; 
 > >                            owl:onProperty x:schnak;
 > >                            owl:allValuesFrom aoeuii].
 > > =====>
 > > x:schnak phil:rangeIncludes aoeuii.
 > 
 > I don't think that you meant this, as it mixes up classes and metaclasses.


Oops - sorry, it's getting late. I meant:

 x:myClass rdfs:subClassOf [a owl:Restriction; 
                             owl:onProperty x:schnak;
                             owl:allValuesFrom aoeuii].
 =====>
 x:schnak phil:rangeIncludes aoeuii.


Cheers,

Phil