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

Re: Where DAML+OIL deviates from the RDF-Schema spec.

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:56:20 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010225095225.0377b830@joy.songbird.com>
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 11:53 PM 2/24/01 +0100, Frank van Harmelen wrote:
>[2]
>"[in DAML+OIL] multiple domain expressions restrict the domain of P to the 
>intersection of
>the class expressions.
>Warning: This is contrary to the semantics of the domain element in the 
>RDF Schema
>specification, which we believe to be flawed."
>
>[3]
>"Warning: Although the RDF Schema specification only allows one range 
>restriction for each
>property, it seems quite natural to allow multiple range restrictions. 
>These would then
>again be interpreted as saying that the range of P must be the 
>intersection of all the
>class expressions."

FWIW, I would support changes to RDFS to be more like DAML+OIL in these 
respects.  I think these interpretations are more consistent with the 
overall structure of RDF.

(My rationale:  under "open-world" assumptions RDFS (alone) can not 
generally be used to detect errors in RDF, but it can be used to make 
inferences.  The usages described above better support inference.)

#g

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                 <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 25 February 2001 06:48:34 GMT

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