- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:07:19 +0200
- To: "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: ""Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>this sounds like a union... >>and I don't see that as explained in >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0151.html >>and as I still think we should have >> rdfd:range rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:range . > >I would not recommend that. That would re-introduce all the >range-inheritance problems assocaited with datatyping. The basic idea >of the current proposal is to keep range-assignment (ie rdfs:Range) >and datatyping (rdfd:Range) quite separate, so you can have either >one without the other (or both if you choose to). That is the only >way I can see to allow the kind of Dublin-Core sloppiness in a >rational framework. agreed, we currently have something like http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfd-rules.n3 and a testcase like ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/p7.nt> <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/p7s.nt> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> <http://www.w3.org/2002/rdf-datatyping#> ) log:entails <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/p8.nt> . -- Jos
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 04:28:17 UTC