Re: Domain/Range: conjuntion or disjuntion??

  Thanks Mr. Kampman, I was reading the document you sent, in concrete the
chapter for, and I understand what you explain there, but you can fix it in
other way, don't you?

  A -1-> a, B -2-> b

  (note: Subject -Predicate-> Object)

and property 3 is subproperty of 1 and 2 (first of all, I never understood
subproperties, I would delete it from the schema)
  3 will be a property that expect a instance of A and a instance of B in
the domain and a instance of a and b on the range, you can do something
like this.

  C -subClassOf-> A, C -subClassOf-> B
  c -subClassOf-> a, c -subClassOf-> b

  3 -domain-> C, 3 -range-> c

  You have more sentences but you have exactly the same, and you can add
  3 -subProperty-> 1, 3 -subProperty->2 
  without any interpretation, without inherit ranges and domains.

  Finally, I want to repeat, this is a solution for Sesame a RDF based
product but not for all RDF based products, RDF should be independent of
concrete product necessities.


Arjohn Kampman writes:

> >   We don't gain anything with the conjuntion view but we lose some
> > expresivity.
> >   
> >   Thanks,
> >         Marc
> Marc,
> One of the reason for changing RDF Schema on this issue is that using
> the conjunction view can lead to inconsistencies when combined with
> multiple inheritance. A small document that we wrote about this in
> April of this year can be found at:
> Chapter 4 is about the rdfs:domain and rdfs:range properties.
> I hope this will convince you that disjuction is the way to go, even
> though it has some drawback from a modelers point-of-view.
> Cheers,
> Arjohn
> --
> aidministrator nederland b.v.  -
> prinses julianaplein 14-b, 3817 cs amersfoort, the netherlands
> tel. +31-(0)33-4659987   fax. +31-(0)33-4659987

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 05:48:40 UTC