- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:38:19 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 12:55 AM 7/28/01 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote: >My reading of the RDF mailing list discussions around range and domain is >that the dominant view amongst RDF Schema implementors is in favour of >redefining rdfs:domain so that we can conclude "type(songlines,Book)" >when we see "domain(author,Book), author(songlines,chatwin)". As I say, >I've been buried under the existing RDF Core traffic (anonymous nodes etc) >so haven't assembled an overwhelming case for this claim. (WG members in >favour of the current definition should make their views known!) I agree. Is there anyone in the group who does NOT believe that multiple ranges and domains should be allowed and that they all must be satisfied? #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2001 12:51:33 UTC