Re: Action needed: subClassOf on datatypes

Graham Klyne wrote:


> 
> Just saw Jan's post:
>   
> http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.GSO.4.44.0309021152160.22152-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk. 
> 
> I'm happy with that, which (I think) is effectively (c).
> 
me too.


Jan seems to argue with DanC for option (e) - that somehow or other 
datatyping subClassOf is extensional, whereas elsewhere it is intensional.

I guess I find that really quite problematic.

I seem to remember being isolated in defending the extensional semantics 
for subClassOf; I can't understand what (some of) the rest of you want - 
you got rdfs:subClassOf as intensional, but a least be consistent, and 
forget your extensional intuitions.

Jeremy