- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:26:39 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
pat hayes wrote: > > > >Well, precisely because of the above example. I believe that an > >intersection of bar and baz is a range of foo. If you believe in 'the' > >range, then what else can it be for foo? > > Yes, that is a good point, I confess, and one that forces me to admit > that the idea of 'the' (singular) range has to be relaxed. But even > in this case I would prefer to say that both bar and baz are ranges, > and that it therefore follows that any value of foo is in their > intersection, but not that the intersection *was* a range. > This last part loses me. From a purely English point of view (English as the natural language that I happen to speak and that we are using, not English as a cultural bias etc.) when we say that multiple range restrictions are the conjunction of the individual ranges, isn't this saying that: foo rdfs:range bar . foo rdfs:range baz . => foo rdfs:range _:x _:x owl:intersectionOf (bar baz) . I'm not sure how else to (formally) interpret this. Isn't this the same thing as saying that the intersection *is* a range, why not?. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 20:44:27 UTC