- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:56:20 +0000
- To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 11:53 PM 2/24/01 +0100, Frank van Harmelen wrote:
>[2]
>"[in DAML+OIL] multiple domain expressions restrict the domain of P to the
>intersection of
>the class expressions.
>Warning: This is contrary to the semantics of the domain element in the
>RDF Schema
>specification, which we believe to be flawed."
>
>[3]
>"Warning: Although the RDF Schema specification only allows one range
>restriction for each
>property, it seems quite natural to allow multiple range restrictions.
>These would then
>again be interpreted as saying that the range of P must be the
>intersection of all the
>class expressions."
FWIW, I would support changes to RDFS to be more like DAML+OIL in these
respects. I think these interpretations are more consistent with the
overall structure of RDF.
(My rationale: under "open-world" assumptions RDFS (alone) can not
generally be used to detect errors in RDF, but it can be used to make
inferences. The usages described above better support inference.)
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 25 February 2001 06:48:34 UTC