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

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

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:27:52 -0500
Message-ID: <478163F8.3000806@gmail.com>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>




Michael Kifer wrote:
> 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.

That was my expectation, yes.

Does anyone care about Jos' wording vs. the one I suggested?  If not (if no one 
cares) we'll use Jos'

It is also my sense that no one would object to a resolution, as suggested, that 
Core does not have membership and classification.  Again, please let me know if 
you object.

-Chris



> 
> 
> 	--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
> 

-- 
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
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2008 23:28:03 GMT

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