W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Range interpretation question.

From: Gerardo Horvilleur <mago@mail.internet.com.mx>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:07:41 -0500
Message-ID: <3AE6E83D.7A12E8EC@mail.internet.com.mx>
To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

> > > (b) If P is applied to a resource r, r will belong to C
> Which interpretation of range constraints do you prefer?
> 
> [ P, rdfs:range, C] 
>     is intended to express:
> 
> (a) P may be applied to any resource that belongs to class C
> 
> or
> 
> (b) If P is applied to a resource r, r will belong to C

What happens if you also have [P, rdfs:range, C2]?

With the current "union" semantics then (b) would have to be restated
as:
 (b1) if P is applied to a resource r, r might belong to C

if we change to "intersection" semantics then (b) could be restated as:
  (b2) if P is applied to a resource r, r will belong to C and C2

In my opinion the correct interpretation is (a).

Depending on the chosen semantics an application/inference engine could
have (b1) or (b2) stated as a rule. Using just plain (b) by itself might
be wrong because it only considers the special case where P has a single
range. On the other hand: a property with multiple ranges seems a little
weird to me. Does anyone have a good example of why it might be useful?


-- 
Gerardo Horvilleur
mago@mail.internet.com.mx
.
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2001 12:06:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT