- 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