RE: Action needed: subClassOf on datatypes

Given

> "In addition, if it is known that the value space of the datatype 
> denoted by ddd is a subset of that of the datatype denoted by eee, 
> then it would be appropriate to assert that
> 
> ddd rdfs:subClassOf eee .
> 
> but this needs to be asserted explicitly; it does not follow from the 
> subset relationship alone."

I am favoring option (c). 

I'm also not opposed to Jeremy's (c++).

> In rule terms, do y'all think that rdfD4 *ought* 
> to be a valid rule (ie to be undeniably true under all 
> circumstances), or would it be better to allow people to make, but 
> also be free to not make, subClassOf assertions about 'external' 
> datatypes?

I think we should allow/require folks to make such assertions
explicitly, if they want such entailments to hold.

Patrick