- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:56:18 -0500
- To: tarod@softhome.net
- Cc: brian_mcbride@hp.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, jena-dev@yahoogroups.com
From: tarod@softhome.net Subject: Re: Domain/Range: conjuntion or disjuntion?? Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:16:35 GMT > > Tricks almost never work as you hope, I agree with that. My point was, > you can be sure that an instance of CarsAndMotos is instanceOf Car and > instance of MotorCycle, but you can't not be sure that instance of Vehicle > is instance of Car or instance of MotorCycle. > > So, with CarsAndMotos I can simulate the conjuntion view of domains, but > with Vehicles I can't simulate the disjuntion view of domains (and ranges). > For DAML projects, with CarsAndMotos you can perform inference without > any problem. > > Regards, > Marc Yes, your trick is one-sided one way and the other trick is one-sided the other way. You claim that your trick captures everything you want, but that does not necessarily mean that your trick does not lose anything. In particular, suppose that I want to say the following: If something is in the domain of a property then it is allowable to have a value for the property. This is not captured by your trick. peter
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 11:56:29 UTC