- From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:51:22 -0500
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
- CC: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > > <rdf:Property rdf:ID="hasValue"> > > <rdfs:label>hasValue</rdfs:label> > > <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Restriction"/> > > </rdf:Property> > > > > Note that there is no rdfs:range specified. Is that a mistake? The > > other properties - allValuesFrom, someValuesFrom, etc - do have an > > rdfs:range specified, so it leads me to believe that it is a > > mistake. /Roger > > Not having a specified range for a property is definitely not a > mistake. There is absolutely no requirement that a property have a > range or a domain. Sorry, I didn't express myself very well. Of course I realize that it is okay to not specify a range. All I was trying to point out was that the definition of hasValue is inconsistent with the others of its ilk - allValuesFrom, someValuesFrom, etc - because they specify a range whereas hasValue doesn't. I found that rather odd, and figured that it was either an oversight, or there was a good reason why no range was specified. Which is it? /Roger
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 07:52:11 UTC