request for feedback on domain and range semantics.

From: pat hayes (
Date: 10/25/02

  • Next message: Deborah McGuinness: "Re: Suggestions for DQL changes made at Portland"
    (BCCd to three WGs to avoid cross-postings in replies)
    I am hereby seeking feedback in order to help me make a decision. As 
    editor of the RDF MT document, I have discretion to decide whether 
    rdfs:range and rdfs:domain should have 'IF' or "IFF" semantics.  What 
    turns on this, in case anyone hasn't been following, is whether 
    ('iff') or not ('if') the following inference should be considered 
    P rdfs:range A .
    A rdfs:subClassOf B .
    P rdfs:range B .
    I have argued for the utility of disallowing this entailment, and 
    several people have agreed; but there also seems to be a widespread 
    feeling that the entailment is intuitively 'reasonable'. Moreover, 
    several people have noted a preference for having a uniform rule one 
    way or the other, and I think it is essential that we give subClassOf 
    and subPropertyOf an 'iff' semantics. On the other hand, the 'if' 
    alternative makes life a little easier for inference engines.
    So far, all the arguments I have heard, including my own, are 
    basically aesthetic. My request is, does anyone have a "can't live 
    with" technical objection to either alternative? If so please send me 
    an email in the next few days.  Thanks.
    Pat Hayes
    IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
    40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
    Pensacola               			(850)202 4440   fax
    FL 32501            				(850)291 0667    cell	

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 10/25/02 EDT