- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:04:24 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
...... >As far as OWL is concerned, > > foo rdfs:range bar . > >should follow from > > foo rdfs:range baz . > baz rdfs:subClassOf bar . > >This would fit in with the general OWL stance on these sorts of things. Come on, I need more than that. What 'general OWL stance' ?? Does OWL differ so much from DAML+OIL that conjunctive information about property ranges and domains is now considered illegal? And what does one *gain* by making this change, in any case? Jeremy's entailment goes through, if properly expressed, with the current semantics for domain and range. The above entailment strikes me as completely wrong, both formally and intuitively. For example, all properties, on this view, have the universe as their range. It basically makes range assertions into un-assertions: their only utility would be enable one to guess (not infer) from the lack of a range assertion that something probably wasn't in the range. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 16:04:16 UTC