- From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sf.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:47:33 +0100
- To: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, pdawes@users.sourceforge.net, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi Benja, Hi Peter, Benja Fallenstein writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > |>I've recently found myself wanting a less-restrictive version of > |>rdfs:range (or owl:allValuesFrom) and rdfs:domain. I want to say > |>'property *can* have range of class foo' rather than 'property *must* > |>have range of class foo'. > | > | Hmm. > | > | First of all, there is no 'property *must* have range of class foo' in RDF > | or OWL. All there is is ``property *has* range class foo''. > | > | Second, what do you mean by 'property *may* have range of class foo'? > > "There exist triples with property P and an object of class foo," rather > than "All triples with property P have objects of class foo," is a > useful interpretation, I presume. > Yep - that's what I meant. Sorry for not being clear. Cheers, Phil
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 15:48:57 UTC