W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > March 2003

Re: No rdfs:range specified for owl:hasValue ... an error?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:55:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030310.095530.30354964.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: costello@mitre.org
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: No rdfs:range specified for owl:hasValue ... an error?
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:51:22 -0500

> 
> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> > 
> > > <rdf:Property rdf:ID="hasValue">
> > >      <rdfs:label>hasValue</rdfs:label>
> > >     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Restriction"/>
> > > </rdf:Property>
> > >
> > > Note that there is no rdfs:range specified.  Is that a mistake?  The
> > > other properties - allValuesFrom,  someValuesFrom, etc - do have an
> > > rdfs:range specified, so it leads me to believe that it is a 
> > > mistake. /Roger
> > 
> > Not having a specified range for a property is definitely not a 
> > mistake. There is absolutely no requirement that a property have a 
> > range or a domain.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't express myself very well.  Of course I realize that it
> is okay to not specify a range.  All I was trying to point out was that
> the definition of hasValue is inconsistent with the others of its ilk -
> allValuesFrom,  someValuesFrom, etc - because they specify a range
> whereas hasValue doesn't.  I found that rather odd, and figured that it
> was either an oversight, or there was a good reason why no range was
> specified.  Which is it?  /Roger
> 

At the time the file was written, it was not a possible to specify a range
for these sorts of properties.  Changes to the RDF model theory have made
it possible to now specify such ranges, but I think that it is still a bad
idea.

peter
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 09:55:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:43 GMT