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

RE: possible semantic bugs concerning domain and range

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:53:01 +0200
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDOEECCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

FYI

this topic is also being aired in RDF Core where I produced the following
test case:

1:[[

eg:prop rdfs:range eg:A .
eg:A rdfs:subClassOf eg:B .

entails

eg:prop rdfs:range eg:B .
]]

(i.e. in english,
every object of a eg:prop is an eg:A.
every eg:A is an eg:B,
thus
every object of an eg:prop is an eg:B).

The current RDF MT says this does not hold.
Peter's OWL semantics says this does hold.

Jeremy

Pat:
> Ah, it occurs to me that one of the bugs that Peter may have been
> referring to is my use of rdfs:range and rdfs:domain.  Peter
> apparently believes that the RDFS semantics for these are wrong and
> need correcting. However, I disagree, and do not propose to alter
> them in the RDFS MT. If OWL needs to use different notions then OWL
> should introduce and use owl:domain and owl:range rather than use the
> RDFS vocabulary. I would however suggest that the adoption of a
> different mechanism at such a basic level might be a decision which
> should be examined very carefully, as it has many repercussions (eg
> for datatyping mechanisms). I havn't seen any good arguments for it,
> which is why I simply used the RDFS notions in the document.
>
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 03:53:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT