From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 01/09/01
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: Joint Committee telecon today (semantics for domain and range) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 12:59:06 -0600 > "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? ;-) I meant intended meaning in the sense that it is what is alluded to in the RDFS documentation, but not fully specified there. > 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... The RDFS documentation has a completely different meaning for multiple domains. I know that there appears to be consensus to change RDFS in this manner, but I think that we need to attach caveats to every definition of domain and range until the change is made. :-( > 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.) iff would mean something completely different. > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST