- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:49:43 -0600
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>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. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 20:50:54 UTC