W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Semantics was RE: weekly call for agenda items

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:46:03 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org

At 10:28 25/10/2002 +0200, Jos De_Roo wrote:

>I guess it's the one from
>eg:prop rdfs:range eg:A .
>eg:A rdfs:subClassOf eg:B .
>eg:prop rdfs:range eg:B .

Which looks clearly false to me, so I'd better ask to find out what I'm 


   IEXT(A) = {a}
   IEXT(B) = {a, b}

Then if I say that prop can take any member of A as its value, it can also 
take any member of B, because B happens to be a superclass of B.


Isn't it to stop that sort of thing happening that we switched domain and 
range to conjunctive semantics, i.e. so that an inferencing engine finding 
a range constraint would know that all values must be a member of that 
class; there is no way to add members to the range?

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 04:43:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:16 UTC