Re: Another try at subclass

Axel Polleres 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 .
> 
> 
> that would mean that each rif:subClassOf should be a rdf:subClassOf...
> aehm... shouldn't it be - if any - just the other way around?
> 
> rdfs:subClassOf is more specific.

I don't think so. The original objection to using rdfs:subClassOf was 
the reflexivity. This permits rif:subClassof to not be reflexive.

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England