Re: POWDER: thoughts

Still to-do, on Monday

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> - resource descriptions and monotonicity
>   I got a bad non-monotonic feeling while reading the powder-grouping 
> WD; interestingly it was while reading bits that had clearly been 
> written with the issue in mind :(
> 
> - the subclass relationship
>   I take the reified rdfs:subClassOf triple in the example that has 
> circulated in earlier e-mail to be a response to a request to be more 
> formal, or more OWL like, in response to the powder-dr WD. However, the 
> design in the WD looks more user-friendly to me, if it could be made to 
> work ...
>