- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:13:50 -0600
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>[...]
>
>> We may in fact need something like rdfs:drange ("deranged"? ;-)
>> if rdfs:range only implies rdf:type and not rdf:dtype,
>
>we have that per
>{ ?d a rdf:DataType . ?p rdfs:range ?d . ?s ?p ?o } log:implies { ?o
>rdf:dType ?d } .
Right, but that is a dtype in the conclusion, right? the rdf:type
follows by normal rdfs inference, but the range-datatyping is
something else that requires an extra semantic constraint. I don't
think we need deranged unless we want to allow some ranges to 'do'
datatyping and others not. And that can be handled, if someone wants
to do it, by defining a coextensive class with the datatype and
making that be the range. Then you get rdf:type inheritance (with one
extra inference step) but the datatyping is blocked, so no rdf:dtype.
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 11:13:00 UTC