- From: Kianoush Eshaghi <Kianoush.Eshaghi@metadat.at>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:17:59 +0200
- To: "'Richard Newman'" <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'RDF interesting groupe'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hi Richard! > Note that the correct behaviour is not to treat range and domain as > constraints, but for inference. E.g. > > :carType a owl:ObjectProperty ; > rdfs:domain :Car . > :x :carType :Saloon . > ========================================== > :x a :Car . > > This is a common misunderstanding in validation. When "car" and > "person" aren't disjoint, and a property such as the above is applied > to a person, it is quite logical to infer that the subject is > both car > and person. You have alredy appointed that "carType" must be only applied to subjects, which instances of Car must be. A RDFS validator should be able to catch some violation such as the following misemployment: <f:Person rdf:ID="me"> <f:carType rdf:resource="saloon"/> </f:Person>
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 12:18:01 UTC