Re: possible semantic bugs concerning domain and range

Pat,
>
> Well, yes, as I said, this is a good point. But I don't think that
> one can rationally agree with this implication but not with the J
> entailment (which I understood you did not like, Jonathan, correct?)
> ie that any superclass of a range is also a range. Since if you
> accept the intersection rule, then you have to concede both that
> ranges can sensibly be inside one another (which on my 'intensional'
> interpretation is kind of silly, although not exactly incoherent) and
> that the minimal range might not be the one that you first thought
> of, as it were; and then there seems to be no objection to allowing
> larger sets to also be ranges (why not?) all the way up to the
> universe.

At the time I was under the mistaken impression that disjunctive semantics
applied to multiple rdfs:range's (which is why I mistakenly thought the
entailment was wrong).

I guess the real problem with having multiple rdfs:ranges is that it poses
exactly the problem you note -- any larger set is technically an rdfs:range
because the _real_ rdfs:range is the intersection of all the rdfs:ranges.

I see your aesthetic issue with

foo rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .

as it ultimately always is... but, no, if we assume conjunctive semantics
then I don't see a _logical_ problem. Shrug, I don't have a better solution.

Jonathan