- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:51:50 +0200
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, ext Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-16 21:21, "ext Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
wrote:
> ppp rdfs:range ddd .
> ppp rdfs:drange ddd .
>
> no conflict,
Hmmm..... actually, these do conflict, in
that if both are defined, only the bNode idioms
are valid, since rdfs:range expects/asserts
an actual value and a literal (inline idiom)
is not a value.
But I guess this is logical, since if someone is
restricting property values only to members of
the value space (rdfs:range) then that would of
course exclude lexical forms (literals) in the
object position.
Likewise, if one restricts property values only
to members of the lexical space (rdfs:lrange) then
that would exclude bNode denotation of values in
the object position.
This seems reasonable to me. Conflicts arising from
merging arbitrary graphs will be part of life on
the Semantic Web. At least the conflicts between
rdfs:range, rdfs:drange, and rdfs:lrange will be
obvious, easy to spot, and not completely hidden in
the MT machinery.
Eh?
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2002 03:50:27 UTC