- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:09:27 -0500
- To: Reto Gmür <reto@wymiwyg.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 02/29/2016 03:50 AM, Reto Gmür wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016, at 03:04, David Booth wrote: >> 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). > > I did not say that it restricts the possible values of the properties, > but I'm saying that it restricts the possible rdfs:range statements that > are possible without creating a contradiction. Yes, I guess that's true. For any class :C, if :C owl:disjointWith :Cat then it would not be possible to declare :p rdfs:range :C without creating a contradiction. So in that sense it limits the subsequent rdfs:range statements that can be made. David Booth
Received on Monday, 29 February 2016 15:09:57 UTC