On 27 Jun 2003, Brian McBride wrote: > > 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? Can someone please provide me with a concrete counterexample of this, if it's not the case? -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I have nothing to fear.Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 10:43:23 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:59 EDT