Re: Another try at subclass

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