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

  Sorry, I think I didn't explain correctly, my english is not as good as I
wish.

  I meant RDF Schema as you noticed. The problem I wanted to explain is why
the RDFSchema should use the domain classes as an intersection instead of a
union, without using DAML, ok? I know DAML is more powerful, but RDFSchema
should be independent of that, if I want to use RDF to represent an UML
Model, the intersection in the domain of the property is not as useful as
the union... 

  Where can I find a good point to explain it without using or thinking in
DAML? 

  I think the problem lies in RDFSchema being modified according to one
RDFSchema-based vocabulary.

  Thanks, 
        Marc  
 
Sean B. Palmer writes:

> >   I don't know, but it will be a daml solution not a rdf
> > solution, because there is no rdf problem with domains,
> > at least, in my opinion.
> 
> Pardon me? I presume that by "rdf solution" you in fact mean "RDF
> Schema". RDF Schema is a vocabularly built on top of the RDF model
> with which one can create new languages, by defining what goes where.
> DAML is very similar to this, except it's a bit (read: a lot) more
> powerful, and it was defined by DARPA, rather than W3C.
> 
> Clearly, people take domains and ranges to be conjuntive; it is useful
> to do so, and the content that you originally cited gives a good
> reason (from TimBL) as to why they should be taken conjuntively, with
> agreement by whoever was responding. I have further demonstrated that
> by using DAML, you can still create unions of classes, and use them as
> domains or ranges. The only difference in the two approaches is that
> now, when you want to declare constraints as intersections, you end up
> with less triples than if you wanted to do the same using unions. But
> so what? :-)
> 
> --
> Kindest Regards,
> Sean B. Palmer
> @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
> :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
>

Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 12:46:59 UTC