W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Challenge for RDF Gurus :)

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:26:04 -0800
Message-ID: <007d01c1b56b$ead5e8e0$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: <tarod@softhome.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
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
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:29:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:34 UTC