Re: range, domain: Conjunctive AND disjunctive semantics both supportable; constraints should be identical

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:40:41 -0400
• To: Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk
• Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20000929084041O.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Subject: range, domain: Conjunctive AND disjunctive semantics both           supportable; constraints should be identical
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:21:53 +0100 (BST)

> and loosely:
> 
> P has a range of (a member of the union of A and B)
> 
> 	A --[rdfs:subclassOf]-> anon:C
> 	B --[rdfs:subclassOf]-> anon:C
> 	P --[rdfs:range]-> anon:C
> 
> (give anon:C a real URI if you prefer).
> 
> Are there problems with this scheme?

Unfortunately, this does not restrict the range of P to the union of A and
B but instead to some (unspecified) superset of the union.  

> Secondly: it seems to me that whatever constraints (semantics) are
> eventually applied to rdfs:range should be identical to those applied to
> rdfs:domain.

I totally agree with this point.

Peter Patel-Schneider

Received on Friday, 29 September 2000 08:42:02 UTC