From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 01/09/01
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > As promised, I have a new version of the semantics for DAML+OIL. It is > enclosed below. > > The ONLY substantive changes are the last two lines, which read > > <domain,?P,?C> if <x,y> in IR(?P) then x in IC(?C) > <range,?P,?C> if <x,y> in IR(?P) then y in IC(?C) > > NOTE: This does not correspond to the current RDFS intended meaning for > these constructs. Intended by whom? ;-) It corresponds to what I intend, and at least one of the RDFS editors (Guha). It does not correspond to the way some folks have interpreted the RDFS spec. I should double-check that this is on the RDF IG issues list... no time just now. Please remind me if you get a chance... Er... substantively: the implication should go both ways, no? <x,y> in IR(?P) iff x in IC(?C) No... I guess that would mean that these are total functions. (sorry, no time to think carefully about it.) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST