- From: Hart, Lewis <lhart@grci.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:11:28 -0400
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
I have some rather pedestrian, non-theoretical questions about the latest DAML+OIL specification. The specification page directs comments to this list, but the typical list topics have been far removed from these types of issues. But if this is not the forum to address them, then where should they be addressed? Some examples of questions I have are: Consider this partial definition from the latest spec... <rdf:Property rdf:ID="unionOf"> ... omitted ... <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Class"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#List"/> </rdf:Property> Why is it not defined like this: <ObjectProperty rdf:ID="unionOf"> ... omitted ... <domain rdf:resource="#Class"/> <range rdf:resource="#List"/> </ObjectProperty> Specifically, 1. The semantics of rdfs:domain, which are "believed to be flawed" [1], are different that the semantics of daml:domain. So, why is rdfs:domain used? Would it not, in general, be preferred to use daml:domain in the DAML+OIL specification? 2. The property daml:unionOf is of type rdf:Property, but has domain and range of daml:Class and daml:List. How should a RDF (but not DAML) aware agent deal with that? Or, stated another way, if we are trying to allow some usability of DAML by RDF/RDFS only applications, this doesn't seem to support that. 3. This is a property which relates objects to other objects, wouldn't the daml:unionOf be better defined as a daml:ObjectProperty? Thanks. - Lewis [1] http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference.html#domain-def ___________________________________________ Lewis L Hart GRC International lhart@grci.com 1900 Gallows Rd. Voice (703)506-5938 Vienna, Va 22182 Fax (703)556-4261
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 11:11:37 UTC