- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:07:52 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > Yes, and you get that, because ex:OddInteger is still a range of foo. > However, ex:integer is also a range of foo. > > Think of what happens if you assert > > foo rdfs:range ex:OddInteger . > ex:OddInteger rdfs:subClassOf ex:Integer . > foo rdfs:range ex:Integer . > > Aside from the actual rdfs:range stuff, this has the same interpretations > as > > foo rdfs:range ex:OddInteger . > ex:OddInteger rdfs:subClassOf ex:Integer . > > so why shouldn't a range of foo be ex:Integer? > because (first we are not asserting foo rdfs:range ex:Integer . as a premise) ex:EvenInteger rdfs:subClassOf ex:Integer . ex:EvenInteger owl:DisjointWith ex:OddInteger . hence if foo rdfs:range ex:OddInteger . then NOT foo rdfs:range ex:EvenInteger . but if foo rdfs:range ex:Integer then foo rdfs:range ex:EvenInteger . (triple speak is getting tedious ...) that is to say, that rdfs:range should chain _down_ rdfs:subClassOf but _not up_ rdfs:subClassOf Jonathan
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 20:25:42 UTC