- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:42:37 -0500
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>Seems to me we must have both if we're going to capture the notion >of range/domain as understood by database designers (object and >relational), object-oriented programmers, and most untrained users >(my suspicion - cannot prove it) > Borrowing Chris' idea of talking KR instead of OWL, here's some examples > > >student is a person >takeClass has range student >faculty is a person. >faculty and student are disjoint > >1) X TakeClass Y -> X a person, X a student > >2) X takeClass Y, X oneOf (John Mary) -> X is Mary > >Add >takeclass range teenager >teenager a person >teenager and adult are disjoint > > >3) X takeClass Y -> X a person, X a teenager, X a student > >4) X takeClass Y, X oneOf (John Mary Sam), Adult(Mary) -> X is Sam > >Now, turning this back into OWL - I would expect these to be the >semantics that most people would expect - if either RDFS has this >wrong, or DAML has it wrong, we should fix it (either ourselves or >via RDF Core). If these all hold, and the debate is elsewhere, then >I'm confused The debate is elsewhere, Im afraid. Both sides support these entailments. However, let me ask you: do you think that your first four facts entail takeClass has range (student union horses union oneOf( beta-lyrae, pats left foot)) ? On the 'iff' stance, they do. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 27 September 2002 23:42:20 UTC