Re: domains and ranges in RDFS semantics

>I have brought up this issue in passing, but it doesn't seem to have
>resulted in a formal issue.
>RDF Semantics states in Section 3.3:
>	Similarly, some domain and range assertions are omitted from the
>	above table; in those cases, the domain or range of the property
>	may be taken to be rdfs:Resource, i.e., the universe; such range
>	and domain assertions are essentially vacuous.
>First, there is no need for a property to have a domain or range or to have
>just one domain or ragne.  Therefore the first two clauses are misleading.
>Second, domains and ranges are not iff in RDFS (although one might want
>this to be the case).  Adding a domain or range of rdfs:Resource is not
>vacuous.  Therefore the third clause is incorrect.

Yes, you are right, these are not vacuous, and in fact they would 
make the closure rules work better. I will put them back into the 
tables and modify the text. Should be done in the editors draft by 
Monday. The above comments were a mental slip; I was thinking of the 
assertion of an rdf:type being rdfs:Resource.

IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell	   for spam

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 20:50:54 UTC