W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

request for feedback on domain and range semantics.

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:08:55 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b02b9df265cd5f5@[65.217.30.130]>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, pfps@research.bell-labs.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com

(BCCd to three WGs to avoid cross-postings in replies)

I am hereby seeking feedback in order to help me make a decision. As 
editor of the RDF MT document, I have discretion to decide whether 
rdfs:range and rdfs:domain should have 'IF' or "IFF" semantics.  What 
turns on this, in case anyone hasn't been following, is whether 
('iff') or not ('if') the following inference should be considered 
valid:

P rdfs:range A .
A rdfs:subClassOf B .
-->
P rdfs:range B .

I have argued for the utility of disallowing this entailment, and 
several people have agreed; but there also seems to be a widespread 
feeling that the entailment is intuitively 'reasonable'. Moreover, 
several people have noted a preference for having a uniform rule one 
way or the other, and I think it is essential that we give subClassOf 
and subPropertyOf an 'iff' semantics. On the other hand, the 'if' 
alternative makes life a little easier for inference engines.

So far, all the arguments I have heard, including my own, are 
basically aesthetic. My request is, does anyone have a "can't live 
with" technical objection to either alternative? If so please send me 
an email in the next few days.  Thanks.

Pat Hayes
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola               			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501            				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 13:09:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT