Re: Challenge for RDF Gurus :)

Seth Russell writes:

> From: <>
> re:
> >   Good try but I must say that it's not 100% what I asked for because for
> > the range issue you use
> >   Class C
> >   A is subClassOf C
> >   B is subClassOf C
> >   And then c range is C. It's a good aproach but it's not logically
> > correct, you are saying that range of c is (C or A or B) and I asked for
> > range of c should be (A or B)
> Ok, I saw this problem after I published the graph.  I would need a way to
> say that there is no instances of C which is not and instance of A or B.
> I'm beginning to agree with Sean, there is no way to say this with the
> primitives of rdfs only.
  It was posible before some RDFCore changes :)

> What is your objection to using the daml schema?

  I have no objection, this is just a challenge. 
> >   Now try it with the old aproach it's easier.
> What approach are you talking about here?
  Before some changes in the schema, that a property had two domains (at
the begining a property must only have one range, now it can have more than
one) means that the subject of the property must be in one of those
domains, it was a disjuntion of restrictions. When they added more than one
range if they had used this vision, the value of a property must be a
member of one of the domains, if that make sense to you, try it now. It's
very easy having this in mind.
> Seth Russell

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 11:16:22 UTC