Re: weekly call for agenda items from Patrick Stickler on 2002-10-25 (w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org from October 2002)

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:19:53 +0300
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004501c27bf6$e9fd0640$6a80720a@NOE.Nokia.com>

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

> And since, by the way, I seem to 
> be in a lone minority on this argument, I am willing to just go with 
> the flow and accept the Jeremy entailment (superclasses of ranges are 
> also ranges). If that will rapidly reach consensus, please let us 
> rapidly reach consensus.

I seem to have missed this. Does the above mean that if I have 

   xsd:byte rdfs:subClassOf xsd:decimal .
   age rdfs:range xsd:byte .
   Jenny age "1000"^^xsd:decimal .

that there is no conflict between the range assertion and
the value specified for Jenny's age? That the above range
assertion entails

   age rdfs:range xds:decimal .

???

If so, then I would consider RDFS to be hopelessly broken
and unusable.

Could someone please clarify?

Thanks,

Patrick

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 03:19:55 UTC