http://www.amberdown.net/2009/09/faq-why-do-rdfsdomain-and-range-work-backwards/ Dave Reynolds' noodlings on the semantic web with just a smattering of Aikido Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:25:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.amberdown.net/2009/09/faq-why-do-rdfsdomain-and-range-work-backwards/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Dave Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:32:09 +0000 http://www.amberdown.net/?p=22#comment-25 Thanks Jos. Quite agree. The original text was in the context of the Jena OWL full reasoners for which the optional extensional RDFS semantic rules are enabled. That should have been made clear in the posting. Thanks Jos. Quite agree. The original text was in the context of the Jena OWL full reasoners for which the optional extensional RDFS semantic rules are enabled. That should have been made clear in the posting.

]]> http://www.amberdown.net/2009/09/faq-why-do-rdfsdomain-and-range-work-backwards/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Jos de Bruijn Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:26:05 +0000 http://www.amberdown.net/?p=22#comment-24 Be advised that under normative RDFS entailment, eg:personalName rdfs:domain eg:Animal . will *not* be entailed. However, all resources in the domain of eg:personalName will be of rdf:type eg:Animal. Thus, the domain constraint holds in practice, but the statement asserting the constraint does not, because of the intensional nature of normative RDFS entailment. Be advised that under normative RDFS entailment,
eg:personalName rdfs:domain eg:Animal .
will *not* be entailed. However, all resources in the domain of eg:personalName will be of rdf:type eg:Animal. Thus, the domain constraint holds in practice, but the statement asserting the constraint does not, because of the intensional nature of normative RDFS entailment.

]]>