- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:06:42 +0000
- 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 UTC