W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2003

IFF semantics of subClassOf history

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:25:01 +0200
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDKEMMCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


In the April 2002 draft

The model theory had if-then intensional semantics on subClassOf
subPropertyOf, whereas various entailment rules depended on the
missing -only-if (rdfs5, rdfs7 and rdfs8)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020429/

While there was some discussion of domain and range before summer 2002, the
next step was:


http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0169

[[
Recent attempts (in collaboration with Peter and Ian) to reconcile
the RDF(S) MT with the emerging OWL MT have suggested that it would
be good to make a technical alteration to the semantic conditions for
RDFS.
]]
[[
(To emphasize, this change makes the MT *more* conventional
rather than less, ie this is the standard way to do it)
]]


Graham seem to win the day with this comment:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0296
[[
Returning to Pat's proposed change [1], I think I can see that the IFF is
appropriate for rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf, because they are
directly related to expectations of class membership.  I'm not so convinced
the same considerations apply to rdfs:range and rdfs:domain.
]]


We finally got to discuss it at the October 25 telecon
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0386.html

and the crucial comment seemed to be connolly:
[[
waiting for decisions? the WG is *not* in the critical path
any more; there are no pending issues.
the WG has no open issues and proposes editors just proceed
]]


and Pat then implemented Graham's position.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 09:24:53 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:59 EDT