- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:55:30 -0500 (EST)
- To: costello@mitre.org
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org> Subject: Re: No rdfs:range specified for owl:hasValue ... an error? Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:51:22 -0500 > > "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 > At the time the file was written, it was not a possible to specify a range for these sorts of properties. Changes to the RDF model theory have made it possible to now specify such ranges, but I think that it is still a bad idea. peter
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 09:55:40 UTC