On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 23:44, pat hayes wrote: [...] > > > >If so, then Owl want a stronger notion of subClassOf than that proposed > >in this document for rdfs:subClassOf. > > It will want to impose stronger conditions on the meaning of that term, yes. I had my stronger/weaker notions mixed up apparently. I had taken stronger to mean more restrictive, i.e. that c1 owl:subClassOf c2 |= c1 rdfs:subClassOf c2 But that isn't the case, right? BrianReceived on Friday, 27 June 2003 06:45:32 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:59 EDT