W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: ISSUE-43 ISSUE 41 - Proposed resolution for membership and classification

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:47:46 -0500
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <25580.1199555266@cs.sunysb.edu>



Yes, I agree. I think this is what Chris meant in the technical sense, but
he formulated the way he did in order to relate these constructs using
familiar terms. Also, although in the presentation syntax these things look
like # and ##, in the XML syntax they will be rif:subclassOf or something
like that.


	--michael  

> These proposals do not address my concerns [2], but if the working group 
> really insists on having the constructs I will not object, but rather 
> abstain.
> 
> I would proposed, though, to rephrase the proposed resolutions as 
> follows to make sure they make some technical sense [the proposed typing 
> and subclass statements in RIF are language constructs and not constant 
> symbols]:
> 
> Proposed: Close Issue-43 by including in BLD subclass formulae of the
> form a ## b.  In the RDF compatibility document,
> ## and rdfs:subClassOf will be connected appropriately, i.e. whenever a 
> ## b holds, a rdfs:subClassOf b is required to hold.
> 
> Proposed: Close Issue-41 by including in BLD membership formulae of the
> form c # a.  In the RDF compatibility document, # and rdf:type will be 
> connected appropriately, i.e. a # b holds iff a rdf:type b holds.
> 
> 
> I would also like to see a resolution which says that we do not include 
> membership and subclassing in Core, as proposed by Michael in [1].
> 
> 
> Best, Jos
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Dec/0062.html
> 
> [2] doubts about the usefulness of the constructs; yet another ontology 
> modeling language for the semantic Web
> 
> Chris Welty wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > It's time to push now and start closing some of these age-old RIF issues.
> > 
> > My sense of this discussion is that the following proposal addresses 
> > enough concerns of those who object to membership and classification in 
> > BLD that they can live with it while still leaving something for those 
> > who favor it.
> > 
> > Proposed: Close Issue-43 by including in BLD subclass formulae of the 
> > form a rif:subClassOf b.  In the RDF compatibility document, 
> > rif:subClassOf will be defined as a rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf.
> > 
> > Proposed: Close Issue-41 by including in BLD membership formulae of the 
> > form c rif:type a.  In the RDF compatibility document, rif:type will be 
> > defined to be equivalent to rdf:type.
> > 
> > I realize the latter begs the question why rif:type if it is the same as 
> > rdf:type, but I'd like to handle that question separately.
> > 
> > So, if you object to these proposed resolutions let us know, otherwise 
> > I'd like to close these on Tuesday.
> > 
> > -Chris
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
> +390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
> ----------------------------------------------
> Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but
> certainty is absurd.
>    - Voltaire
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2008 17:48:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:44 GMT