- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:04:08 -0500
- To: Reto Gmür <reto@wymiwyg.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
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 02:04:40 UTC