W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: error?

From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:57:15 -0700
Message-ID: <028401c222c3$73434230$7245a640@odysseus2001>
To: "Franco Salvetti" <franco.salvetti@tiscalinet.it>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <boley@informatik.uni-kl.de>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Franco Salvetti" <franco.salvetti@tiscalinet.it>;
Cc: <boley@informatik.uni-kl.de>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: error?

> One can think of a range statement as a contraint.  With no range
> there is no contraint on the range of rdf:object which is what we want.

Arrgh. I thought I just spent a huge thread and determined that RDF Schema
does *not* specify constraints.

From Frank Manola, 11 June 2002:

>  You're
>  interpreting the RDF Schema as necessarily defining *redundant*
>  information that you can check for consistency against the instances
>  (e.g. that if dc:creator has a range of Person, the resource that's the
>  value of a dc:creator must have a rdf:type property with value Person),
>  but technically the Schema can be equally interpreted as being
>  additional descriptive information about instances (so if you find a
>  resource that's the value of a dc:creator, you can assume it's of type
>  Person because the schema says it must be).

From Patrick Hayes, 11 June 2002:

> You SAID that the
> range of the property was foo:Person, and then you SAID that the
> value of the property on something was a bag. It follows inexorably,
> from the usual meaning of 'range', that you have said that the bag is
> a foo:Person. If you didn't mean that, why did you say it?

Arrgghh... :)

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 14:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:00 UTC