Re: Challenge for RDF Gurus :)

From: <tarod@softhome.net>

re: http://robustai.net/mentography/rdfs_domain_range2.gif


>   Good try but I must say that it's not 100% what I asked for because for
> the range issue you use
>   Class C
>   A is subClassOf C
>   B is subClassOf C
>   And then c range is C. It's a good aproach but it's not logically
> correct, you are saying that range of c is (C or A or B) and I asked for
> range of c should be (A or B)

Ok, I saw this problem after I published the graph.  I would need a way to
say that there is no instances of C which is not and instance of A or B.
I'm beginning to agree with Sean, there is no way to say this with the
primitives of rdfs only.

What is your objection to using the daml schema?

>   Now try it with the old aproach it's easier.

What approach are you talking about here?

Seth Russell