- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: 2002年2月14日 07:26:04 -0800
- To: <tarod@softhome.net>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <007d01c1b56b$ead5e8e0657ドルba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
From: <tarod@softhome.net> re: http://robustai.net/mentography/rdfs_domain_range2.gif > Good try but I must say that it's not 100% what I asked for because for > the range issue you use > Class C > A is subClassOf C > B is subClassOf C > And then c range is C. It's a good aproach but it's not logically > correct, you are saying that range of c is (C or A or B) and I asked for > range of c should be (A or B) Ok, I saw this problem after I published the graph. I would need a way to say that there is no instances of C which is not and instance of A or B. I'm beginning to agree with Sean, there is no way to say this with the primitives of rdfs only. What is your objection to using the daml schema? > Now try it with the old aproach it's easier. What approach are you talking about here? Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:29:34 UTC