semantics of domain and range (again) [was Re: p3p rdf schema]

Hi Marc,

This really isn't a conversation about the p3p schema so I've changed the 
subject line.

At 17:29 05/02/2002 +0000, tarod@softhome.net wrote:

[...]

>   But here you are modifying your schema from an instance (I don't know if
>it's valid or not, but as far as I know is posible, your rdf is correct)


So lets assume it is.

>But then you are introducing errors to the schema,

No more than you did.

>  I can add as much errors
>as I wish and my model will be a valid rdf but not a valid p3p model, am I
>right?

No.  You are calling things you don't like errors, with no justification 
for so classifying them.  What rule have they broken?


>  But I was not talking about that, I was talking about the model that
>w3c proposed in order to represent p3p, it has some 'errors' (some of them
>intrinsec to the model, I mean, they cann't be corrected) but some of them
>can be corrected if we use the 'in my opinion' right interpretation of
>range/domain constraints, the original one.

I believe I have demonstrated that I can extend your schema and introduce 
'incorrect' values in a similar manner to the way you did for the original 
schema.  Thus your preferred semantics for range does not offer the 
advantage you claim.

We have about done this to death I think.  Unless you've got a new killer 
argument, or a lynch mob, I think we'll just have to disagree.

Brian

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 15:25:37 UTC