RE: RDFS bug "A property can have at most one range property"

Since we are on this topic, what is the intended relationship between RDFS
and DAML-ONT? Is DAML-ONT intended to be an extension of RDFS or a
replacement for RDFS (i.e. what is the intended meaning of the
'equivalentTo' arc as used by DAML-ONT w.r.t RDFS ?) It seems that an
alternate way of defining DAML-ONT terms might have been proper subClassOf
their corresponding RDFS terms, and if not, then perhaps RDFS is not
sufficient for 'real world' work, no?

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org

Ora Lassila wrote:
>
>
> Tim,
>
> sorry, I missed this when it was first posted.
>
> Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> >  in that it says that "A property can have at most one range property. "
> > This basically doens't mean anything on the web.
>
> Yes, this is a bug, and having to reconvene the RDFS WG (since this is
> not a mere editorial change) is an obstacle for pushing RDFS forward in
> the W3C process.
>
> > (Why haven't I spotted that before? I guess just skipped over range and
> > domain
> > assuming they had their normal meanings).
>
> I have a distinct recollection that you and I had lengthy discussions
> about this last spring.
>
> Anyway, I fear that this bug is related to a greater problem in RDFS
> which begs to be addressed: properties of properties (such as range)
> should be defined on a per-class basis - kinda tricky in our
> property-centric approach.
>
> > Please remove the offending wording from the spec.
>
> As I said, we need to "rehydrate" the WG to do this.
>
> 	- Ora
>
> --
> Ora Lassila <daml@lassila.org> +1 (781) 993-4603
>

Received on Friday, 8 December 2000 23:13:12 UTC