Re: minimal requirements for Arch document

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 
> Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
>> In BLD, if we have a##b and b[foo->bar] then it does not follow that
>> a[foo->bar]. But a true object-oriented extension (a la F-logic, for 
>> example)
>> would add nonmon inheritance and a[foo->bar] would follow.
> 
> The possibility that such an extension might be wanted is another good 
> argument why ## should not be in BLD. Such an interpretation of ## would 
> be in conflict with other interpretations such as RDFS/OWL and should 
> use a different predicate.
> 
I'm confused now.
My understanding so far was that the main argument against ##
was that we do not need yet another subclass relation, since
there already is one in rdfs and owl.
But apparently rdfs:subclassOf cannot be extended to cover the
above case. So apparently we do need something new, which can then
be extended (in various ways) to cover both,
rdfs:subclassOf and the above case (and other variants).

Regards,
Igor