- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:57:15 -0700
- To: "Franco Salvetti" <franco.salvetti@tiscalinet.it>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <boley@informatik.uni-kl.de>
- Message-ID: <028401c222c373434230ドル7245ドルa640@odysseus2001>
Brian, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> To: "Franco Salvetti" <franco.salvetti@tiscalinet.it>; <www-rdf-comments@w3.org> Cc: <boley@informatik.uni-kl.de> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 10:12 AM Subject: Re: error? > One can think of a range statement as a contraint. With no range statement > there is no contraint on the range of rdf:object which is what we want. Arrgh. I thought I just spent a huge thread and determined that RDF Schema does *not* specify constraints. From Frank Manola, 11 June 2002: > You're > interpreting the RDF Schema as necessarily defining *redundant* > information that you can check for consistency against the instances > (e.g. that if dc:creator has a range of Person, the resource that's the > value of a dc:creator must have a rdf:type property with value Person), > but technically the Schema can be equally interpreted as being > additional descriptive information about instances (so if you find a > resource that's the value of a dc:creator, you can assume it's of type > Person because the schema says it must be). From Patrick Hayes, 11 June 2002: > You SAID that the > range of the property was foo:Person, and then you SAID that the > value of the property on something was a bag. It follows inexorably, > from the usual meaning of 'range', that you have said that the bag is > a foo:Person. If you didn't mean that, why did you say it? Arrgghh... :) Garret
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 14:59:11 UTC