Re: Some thoughts on the semantics of domain and range (was: Re: RDFS bug "A property can have at most one range property") from Peter F. Patel-Schneider on 2000-09-15 (www-rdf-interest@w3.org from September 2000)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:32:49 -0400
To: ljonas@acm.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20000915083249C.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Lee Jonas" <ljonas@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the semantics of domain and range (was:   Re:   RDFS    bug "A property can have at most one range property")
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:24:19 +0100

> This touched a raw nerve for me.  Our current implementation works on the
> basis of disjunctive semantics for multiple rdfs:domain and ant:range
> properties (the latter is our own specially recognised CostraintProperty to
> work around the fact that RDFS states that multiple rdfs:range properties
> are illegal).

Then how do you get around the non-monotonic implications of the
disjunctive semantics?  

Peter Patel-Schneider

Received on Friday, 15 September 2000 08:34:02 UTC