- From: <tarod@softhome.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:19:07 GMT
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Seth Russell writes: > From: <tarod@softhome.net> > > re: http://robustai.net/mentography/rdfs_domain_range2.gif > > > > Good try but I must say that it's not 100% what I asked for because for > > the range issue you use > > Class C > > A is subClassOf C > > B is subClassOf C > > And then c range is C. It's a good aproach but it's not logically > > correct, you are saying that range of c is (C or A or B) and I asked for > > range of c should be (A or B) > > Ok, I saw this problem after I published the graph. I would need a way to > say that there is no instances of C which is not and instance of A or B. > I'm beginning to agree with Sean, there is no way to say this with the > primitives of rdfs only. It was posible before some RDFCore changes :) > What is your objection to using the daml schema? I have no objection, this is just a challenge. > > Now try it with the old aproach it's easier. > > What approach are you talking about here? Before some changes in the schema, that a property had two domains (at the begining a property must only have one range, now it can have more than one) means that the subject of the property must be in one of those domains, it was a disjuntion of restrictions. When they added more than one range if they had used this vision, the value of a property must be a member of one of the domains, if that make sense to you, try it now. It's very easy having this in mind. > Seth Russell > > Regards, Marc
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 11:16:22 UTC