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

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've already indicated that this is enough for me to abstain rather than 
vote against.

My preference remains to just not have this at all.

> 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.

Why? Given the equivalence introducing a synonym seems pointless. Though 
again I won't formally object to this, it's just one more nail in the 
coffin of my enthusiasm for RIF.

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England