W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Current Action List for RDFCore Working Group

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:04:50 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101009b7cd75104b4a@[]>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>I got hold of Sergey (who is trying to get out from under the hundreds
>of messages that piled up while he was away) by phone on the subclass
>cycle issue.  He said he'd be on the teleconference on Friday (so
>consider this just an interim FYI), but basically he said after thinking
>about the issue following the F2F, he didn't see that allowing cycles in
>subClassOf would make a big difference one way or the other.  He felt
>that not having the restriction against cycles was probably a more
>general way of handling them (since you could introduce
>application-specific restrictions if you wanted to), and that he
>wouldn't have a problem with removing the restriction against cycles if
>we wanted to conform with DAML on this.

Great!  That makes RDF considerably more expressive; now we have a 
way to say that two classes have the same members.


>Brian McBride wrote:
>>  ACTION 2001-08-31#2 Frank Manola
>>    chase Sergei for his reaction to this proposed
>>  resolution to issue rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf when he returns
>>  (or shortly thereafter
>Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
>202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
>mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 18:04:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:51 UTC