Re: working on it (RDFS - if/iff)

> > Pat
> >
> > we still have to *decide* whether we want to go the way in the
documents you
> > produced last week, or along the lines of the after hours conversation.
>
> I agree that we need to decide...
>
> DanBri, Graham, Jan, Mike Dean, everybody: please let's
> make this decision consciously. Please form an opinion
> and let us know.
>
>
>
> I can't find any rationale for the iff choice, other than it's
> what was in the last call
> spec. I find the lack of a proof of completeness of the rules
> evidence of unnecessary complexity. *Why* does anybody
> want rules 12a/12b?

we use them as simple Horn rules to get evidence
for the case


rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf :xcd.
:xcd rdfs:domain :ycd.
rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf :xcr.
:xcr rdfs:range :ycr.
rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf :xpd.
:xpd rdfs:domain :ypd.
rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf :xpr.
:xpr rdfs:range :ypr.

RDFS-entails

rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf :ycd.
rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf :ycr.
rdf:Property rdfs:subClassOf :ypd.
rdf:Property rdfs:subClassOf :ypr.


but this is of course not a sufficient
way to derive rdfs:subClassOf triples
(there are many other ways in owl...)


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/