RE: A basis for convergence and closure?

> >
> >> 5:    Do we allow S-A idiom?

>
> From the ontology maintenance perspective, I don't
> think that the problem of multiple vocabularies goes
> away with the combination of the proposed pair
> of bNode idioms and the S-A idiom, so all my earlier
> expressed concerns apply as well.
>

The new MT makes them interchangeable. There would not be a multiple vocabs
problem with Pat's magic dust.

In particular we would have

  <rdf:int.map> <rdfs:subPropertyOf> <rdf:value> .

etc.

I don't like the URI bloat, but apart from that I see S-A as attractive. I
believe we could use S-A without the URI bloat, but we're then getting onto
third-order considerations.

I think the S-A idiom may well prove more attractive to the document writer
than the D idiom. (It is less characters to type).

Jeremy