Re: Handling multiple rdfs:ranges

Thanks all, I find myself really enjoying this discussion.
(Well, in a sort of hair-shirt way!)

> On 29 Feb 2016, at 15:09, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:25:52 UTC