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

Re: possible semantic bugs concerning domain and range

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:26:39 -0400
Message-ID: <020301c2642a$3790b670$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
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?.

Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 20:44:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:47 UTC