- From: Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:20:58 +0100
- To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Shouldn't both (rif:subClassOf and rif:type) and their relation to rdfs be included in the RIF-RDF-OWL compatibility? This is not to say that they shouldn't be in BLD... Regards, Igor Dave Reynolds wrote: > > 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
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 10:21:17 UTC