RE: Handling multiple rdfs:ranges

I tend to think of schema:domainIncludes and rangeIncludes as a "probably" rather than a "determination". That's comforting if you're trying to map old data into RDF. It also leave the door open for discovering new use cases for a property that may not align with pre-assumptions.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org]
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 9:04 PM
> To: Reto Gmür <reto@wymiwyg.com>
> Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Handling multiple rdfs:ranges
> 
> On 02/26/2016 06:04 AM, Reto Gmür wrote:
> > Sure, still I think that schema:rangeIncludes is not meaningless (as
> > it restricts the rdfs:range statements that are possible) and that
> 
> Under the standard open world assumption (OWA) I do not think it is correct to
> say schema:rangeIncludes *restricts* anything.  Bear in mind that given the
> statement:
> 
>    :p schema:rangeIncludes :Cat .
> 
> one could always add an arbitrary additional class to the property's "expected
> type(s)" by adding another statement like:
> 
>   :p schema:rangeIncludes :Dog .
> 
> Therefore, the original statement cannot be *restricting* anything (under the
> OWA).
> 
> Personally, I think a reasonable way to interpret its meaning is that it says
> 'there exists an individual :d such that :d rdf:type :Dog'.
> 
> > it has
> > some pragmatic usefulness such as when building editors that suggest
> > values for a specific property.
> 
> Agreed.  And it's also useful if you're doing closed world reasoning.
> 
> David Booth

Received on Monday, 29 February 2016 02:20:59 UTC