RDF Issue rdfs-domain-and-range from Brian McBride on 2001-11-18 (www-rdf-comments@w3.org from October to December 2001) (original) (raw)

Michel,

In

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0045.html

you raised an issue with the RDF Schema candidate recommendation which was captured in

http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-domain-and-range

as

[[[

Summary: Ontology languages such as OIL permit multiple range restrictions on a property. If they are to be built on top of RDF Schema, they require the same flexibility. There has been further discussion on how multiple range constraints should be interpretted. Conjunctive semantics requires that a property is constrained by the conjunction (and) of its range constraints; disjunctive semantics require that the property is constrained by the disjunction (or) of its range constraints. It has also been suggested that the semantics of domain constraints be revisted, as development experience has shown the current semantics of domain not to be useful for inference. Further, some symmetry between rdfs:domain and rdfs:range would be expected since the domain of a property is the range of its inverse and vice versa.

]]]

As minuted in

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#decisions

the RDFCore WG has resolved that

Multiple domain and range constraints are permissable and will have conjunctive semantics and this issue is now closed.

Please could you reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org, indicating whether this descision resolves your issue.

Brian McBride RDFCore co-chair

Received on Sunday, 18 November 2001 09🔞55 UTC