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

Re: Another try at subclass

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:19:08 +0100
Message-ID: <47615B7C.8070506@deri.org>
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 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.

but rdfs:subclass implies all kinds of other things wwhich we don't want 
to be implied necessarily for rif:subClassOf on the other hand, right?


a rdfs:subClassOf b . x rdf:type a.

RDFS-entails (even RDF entails)

x rdf:type a.

Do we also want:

a rif:subClassOf b . x rdf:type b.


x rdf:type b. ??

(instead of *only*)

If so, we also want to make

rif:memberOf rdfs:subClassOf rdf:type


just for clarification...


Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/

rdf:Resource owl:differentFrom xsd:anyURI .
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 16:19:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:48 UTC