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

Re: Range interpretation question.

From: Ken Baclawski <kenb@ccs.neu.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:37:08 -0400 (EDT)
To: Arjohn Kampman <akam@aidministrator.nl>
cc: conen@gmx.de, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010425173047.17272A-100000@steam>

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Arjohn Kampman wrote:

> > 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
> I'd prefer (a), because using (b) can lead you into strange
> situations:
> Assume that the C is rdfs:Literal and that you're using a resource
> uri as a target of the property. Using (b) this would mean that the
> uri is a literal. To the best of my knowledge, a uri cannot be both
> a resource and a literal.

No, the DAML+OIL axiomatic semantics states that literals are resources.
From Axiom 17:

Ax17.    (=> (Type ?r ?c) (and (Type ?r Resource) (Type ?c rdfs:Class)))

one can conclude (by setting ?c to rdfs:Literal) that

(=> (Type ?r rdfs:Literal) (Type ?r Resource))

Ken Baclawski
UBOT Project
College of Computer Science
Northeastern University
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2001 17:37:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:34 UTC