> >> RDF's subclassOf does not cut it because > >> > >> 1. It imposes additional axioms, which are not commonly accepted. > > > > Do you have references to back up this statement? > > Why are # ## then more commonly accepted (it seems from the discussion > that they aren't who said they are? Since RDF is out there, its notion of subclass can be said to be more common. But I would not claim that it is more commonly accepted because, from my experience, people do not understand its implications and do not give a damn, since most applications are trivial. > and they are syntactic sugar anyway)? Anyone can define a > dialect where the additionally implied axioms for # and ## hold... # and ## do not have additional axioms. They have fewer axioms. --michaelReceived on Monday, 10 December 2007 17:06:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:44 GMT