- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:43:47 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
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
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 11:59:07 UTC