Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

The domain and range inferences look wrong, is that a bug?

April 26, 2017bug domain inferences look range wrong

0

Posted

The domain and range inferences look wrong, is that a bug?

1 Answer

0

Posted

The way rdfs range and domain declarations work is completely alien to anyone who thinks of RDFS and OWL as being a bit like a type system for a programming language, especially an object oriented language. Whilst there may be bugs in the inference rule sets the most common explanation for surprising results, when listing inferred domains and ranges, is this mismatch in expectations. Suppose we have three classes eg:Man is an rdfs:subClassOf eg:Person is an rdfs:subClassOf eg:Animal. Suppose we have a property eg:personalName which is declared to have rdfs:domain eg:Person. Now the question is what other values can be inferred for the rdfs:domain of eg:personalName? In pure RDFS no additional conclusions can be made. The definition of domain and range is intensional not extensional. It only works forward. Declaring means that anything to which eg:personalName is applied can be concluded to be of type eg:Person. It does not work backward – if you