- From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sf.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 21:26:08 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: b.fallenstein@gmx.de, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi Peter, Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes: > > > > how about: > > > > x:schnak rdfs:range aoeuii > > =====> > > x:schnak phil:rangeIncludes aoeuii > > Perhaps, but this doesn't follow from the intuitive meaning that you said > you were thinking of. Either the intuitive meaning or the inference rule > are wrong. > I'm not sure I understand. I'd like to write some software that offers hints to the user about what types of objects can be used in triples subj x:schnak ? If I can infer the following at the store level: x:schnak rdfs:range aoeuii --> x:schnak phil:rangeIncludes aoeuii then my client just needs to query for (xschnak phil:rangeIncludes ?typehint) to pick information from the rdfs schema as well. > > and maybe (if we're adopting 'range might feasibly include' > > semantics): > > > > x:schnak rdfs:range aoeuii > > baoeu rdfs:subClassOf aoeuii > > =====> > > x:schnak phil:rangeIncludes baoeu > > This is even worse. Again, I don't understand why. (although it does have less utility). > > > and then there's the owl ones: > > > > owl:Class rdfs:subClassOf [a owl:Restriction; > > owl:onProperty x:schnak; > > owl:allValuesFrom aoeuii]. > > =====> > > x:schnak phil:rangeIncludes aoeuii. > > I don't think that you meant this, as it mixes up classes and metaclasses. Oops - sorry, it's getting late. I meant: x:myClass rdfs:subClassOf [a owl:Restriction; owl:onProperty x:schnak; owl:allValuesFrom aoeuii]. =====> x:schnak phil:rangeIncludes aoeuii. Cheers, Phil
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 17:27:29 UTC