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

Re: minimal requirements for Arch document

From: Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:58:52 +0200
Message-ID: <471C826C.1090602@ijs.si>
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, public-rif-wg@w3.org

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).

Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 10:59:13 UTC

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