- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:05:23 -0500
- To: axel@platon.escet.urjc.es
- Cc: "Jos de Bruijn" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, axel@polleres.net, "Public-Rif-Wg" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> >> 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. --michael
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 17:06:29 UTC