Re: Another try at subclass

Axel,

If you write out the models you'll see its the correct way around in my proposal.

Axel Polleres wrote:
> 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?

They won't be implied for rif:subClassOf, just for rdf:subClassOf.

> 
> e.g.:
> 
> 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.
> 
> RDFS-entails
> 
> x rdf:type b. ??

Huh?  A typo here undoubtedly but I'm not sure where.

> 
> (instead of *only*)
> 
> If so, we also want to make
> 
> rif:memberOf rdfs:subClassOf rdf:type

rif:memberOf is a property.  I think it is the same as rdf:type.

-Chris

> 
> yes?
> 
> just for clarification...
> 
> 
> Axel
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty