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

Re: subject: ACTION 2001-09-21#5 subPropertyOf cycles

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:47:06 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010927143948.03b440a0@joy.songbird.com>
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:40 AM 9/25/01 -0400, Frank Manola wrote:
>Here's the motion:  To resolve issue [?do we have an explicit issue?] by
>deleting the restriction prohibiting cycles of subPropertyOf
>properties.  The meaning of a cycle of subPropertyOf properties is an
>assertion that the properties involved in the cycle have the same
>members.  A more formal specification of the meaning is given in the
>model theory.  [This has the same form as the explanation in the
>"subClassOf" motion, but is less intuitive for properties.  I could
>wordsmith this a bit, but it's probably safer to point to the model
>theory].

I'm happy with the general intent.

Some nit-picking:

"...the properties involved in the cycle have the same members"
Should this be:
"... the [relational] extensions of properties involved in the cycle have 
the same members"
?

"A more formal specification of the meaning is given in the model theory"
I don't recall this point being explicitly addressed by the MT;  would it 
be more accurate to say "... given by the model theory"?

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 09:51:05 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:50 EDT