Re: Joint Committee telecon today (semantics for domain and range)

From: Dan Connolly (
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST