RE: possible semantic bugs concerning domain and range


this topic is also being aired in RDF Core where I produced the following
test case:


eg:prop rdfs:range eg:A .
eg:A rdfs:subClassOf eg:B .


eg:prop rdfs:range eg:B .

(i.e. in english,
every object of a eg:prop is an eg:A.
every eg:A is an eg:B,
every object of an eg:prop is an eg:B).

The current RDF MT says this does not hold.
Peter's OWL semantics says this does hold.


> Ah, it occurs to me that one of the bugs that Peter may have been
> referring to is my use of rdfs:range and rdfs:domain.  Peter
> apparently believes that the RDFS semantics for these are wrong and
> need correcting. However, I disagree, and do not propose to alter
> them in the RDFS MT. If OWL needs to use different notions then OWL
> should introduce and use owl:domain and owl:range rather than use the
> RDFS vocabulary. I would however suggest that the adoption of a
> different mechanism at such a basic level might be a decision which
> should be examined very carefully, as it has many repercussions (eg
> for datatyping mechanisms). I havn't seen any good arguments for it,
> which is why I simply used the RDFS notions in the document.

Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 03:53:08 UTC