- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:56:20 +0000
- To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 11:53 PM 2/24/01 +0100, Frank van Harmelen wrote: >[2] >"[in DAML+OIL] multiple domain expressions restrict the domain of P to the >intersection of >the class expressions. >Warning: This is contrary to the semantics of the domain element in the >RDF Schema >specification, which we believe to be flawed." > >[3] >"Warning: Although the RDF Schema specification only allows one range >restriction for each >property, it seems quite natural to allow multiple range restrictions. >These would then >again be interpreted as saying that the range of P must be the >intersection of all the >class expressions." FWIW, I would support changes to RDFS to be more like DAML+OIL in these respects. I think these interpretations are more consistent with the overall structure of RDF. (My rationale: under "open-world" assumptions RDFS (alone) can not generally be used to detect errors in RDF, but it can be used to make inferences. The usages described above better support inference.) #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 25 February 2001 06:48:34 UTC