- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 14:41:38 -0400
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Seems to me we must have both if we're going to capture the notion of range/domain as understood by database designers (object and relational), object-oriented programmers, and most untrained users (my suspicion - cannot prove it) Borrowing Chris' idea of talking KR instead of OWL, here's some examples student is a person takeClass has range student faculty is a person. faculty and student are disjoint 1) X TakeClass Y -> X a person, X a student 2) X takeClass Y, X oneOf (John Mary) -> X is Mary Add takeclass range teenager teenager a person teenager and adult are disjoint 3) X takeClass Y -> X a person, X a teenager, X a student 4) X takeClass Y, X oneOf (John Mary Sam), Adult(Mary) -> X is Sam Now, turning this back into OWL - I would expect these to be the semantics that most people would expect - if either RDFS has this wrong, or DAML has it wrong, we should fix it (either ourselves or via RDF Core). If these all hold, and the debate is elsewhere, then I'm confused -JH -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 14:41:47 UTC