W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: Another try at subclass

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:06:42 +0000
Message-ID: <47610432.1050908@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Chris Welty wrote:
> 
> 
> </chair>
> 
> Back in August I proposed a "friendly amendment" for the rif:subClassOf 
> relation (aka ##) saying that:
> 
> rif:subClassOf rdfs:subproperty rdfs:subClassOf .
> 
> Michael was not opposed, he thought that it was obvious.  Jos replied as 
> below, indicating some possible softness on the point.  I don't think 
> DaveR responded. But I didn't push on it as some other thing must have 
> come up (like vacation probably), and the thread ended with Jos' message 
> below.

I think we discussed it briefly at a telecon.

> So before we give up on it, because I do think it would be useful to 
> have in BLD, I'd like to see if this will make a difference to anyone, 
> specifically the objectors to having rif:subClassOf (DaveR, Jos, ?).

I do think it helps a little.

It doesn't answer the question of why we are creating this semi-parallel 
set of concepts in the first place.

However, it does address one of the sub-issues viz it helps us answer 
the obvious question "so how do rif:type and rif:subClassOf related to 
the similar sounding RDFS/OWL properties?". At a minimum if we put these 
in BLD we need a clear answer to that question and this does that. Well 
does half of it - would need a similar thing for rif:type (or whatever 
the URI for # is).

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 10:07:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:44 GMT