>At 13:43 08/11/2002 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote: > >>As discussed on the telecon, RDFS editors draft currently has an "@@ find >>out what the MT says" TODO regarding this question. Can you let me know >>what the current situation is, so RDFS can reflect that? >> >>rdfs:member is a super-property of each of rdf:_1, rdf:_2, etc. We call >>these the container member properties, and have them as members of >>rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty. Do we have rdfs:member in that class as >>well? > >I'd be surprised if we did. We would have to check the text over >carefully for phrases like "membership of a container is indicated >by a container membership property ..." > >As I recall, we made a decision to have a superproperty, but not >that the superproperty was a container membership property. > >But Pat seemed to indicate at the telecon there were reasons why it had to be. No no. I thought that not having it be one would require rewriting a rule, but even that isnt true. The MT can go either way. My own intuition, like yours, was that the superproperty wasn't a CMP. I need to make a decision, I guess. OK, here goes: Unless I hear a clear majority of views to the contrary, as of next Monday COB, rdfs:member is NOT required to be in the class rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spamReceived on Friday, 8 November 2002 17:28:17 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:01 EDT