- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:01:03 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
pat hayes wrote: > > 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. > Since multiple rdfs:range's are conjunctive, then all properties _should_ have the universe as a compontent of their range, that is, knowing nothing else, the universe is the default rdfs:range, and it becomes intersected with any other rdfs:range restrictions. My intuition tells me that this would be easier to understand if rdfs:range were disjunctive, but who knows, maybe its just confusing regardless. I suspect that your intuition also tells you it is "completely wrong" because your intuition also gravitates toward _disjunctive semantics_ for multiple rdfs:ranges, but that's just my suspicion. In any case we should red flag this for the primer. Jonathan
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 21:18:48 UTC