Re: A few more things to agitate for at the RDF meeting

From: Dan Brickley (
Date: 02/23/01

Thanks, that's a useful document to have. Could you (maybe you already
did) send a pointer to this to www-rdf-logic?



On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Frank van Harmelen wrote:

> The following are relevant quotes from the DAML+OIL reference doc at
> I believe this to be a complete list of all ways in which DAML+OIL violates the RDF-S spec.
> Frank.
>    ----
> [1]
> Warning: The RDF Schema specification demands that the subclass-relation between classes must be acyclic. We believe this to be too restrictive, since a cycle of subclass relationships provides a useful way to assert equality between classes. Consequently, DAML+OIL places no such restriction on the subClassOf relationship between classes;
> [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.

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