From: pat hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 04/25/01
>Pat, I believe the current semantics are correct. The RDF Schema Spec >(sect. 3.1.4) says that rdfs:domain is "used to indicate the class(es) >on whose members a property can be used." To me, this indicates that an >instance of the class does not have to have a value for that property, >i.e., that there could be some Animals for which there is no hasParent >property, but any thing with a hasParent property must be an Animal. Interesting. To me, that form of words suggests the oppposite interpretation. (If a property has no value for some individual then it cannot be "used" on that individual, surely? If it gets used, what is the value of the property?) The real moral is that vaguely worded specifications are worse than useless. OK, but I will take your advice. My problem now is that I don't feel competent to rewrite the walkthru explanations, as I no longer feel that I really follow the intended interpretation of properties and domains. As far as I can see, with this interpretation, there is never any point in declaring a domain or a range. Those statements have no utility, since they do not allow a reasoner to draw any conclusions. Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST