W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: subclasses (RDF vocabulary definitions)

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 07:04:14 -0800
Message-ID: <001601c29238$6c1e1590$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
1. Brian, you got the idea right.
2. As the meaning of "logical flaw" has emerged, it would be more accurate to say that Richard never claimed that RDFS has a "logical flaw" with respect to the definition of "rdfs:subClassOf".  What I do claim is that "xxx:properSubClassOf" is a "better" concept than "rdfs:subClassOf".  But that's an issue that's hard to pin down (as evidenced by the discussion that has already taken place) , and I don't want to pursue it in this forum.
3. It would also be accurate to say that Richard has not yet found a "logical flaw" in the definition of "rdfs:Class".  In fact, I  am still struggling to understand what the definition of "rdfs:Class" is, i.e., I don't know what the Individuals of "rdfs:Class" are. But again, I don't want to pursue that issue with the RDF-interest group.  I will continue to study it on my own, and all of you can get on with your work.
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brian McBride 
  To: Richard H. McCullough ; Jon Hanna ; www-rdf-interest@w3.org 
  Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:04 AM
  Subject: Re: subclasses (RDF vocabulary definitions)


  At 05:45 22/11/2002 -0800, Richard H. McCullough wrote:

  Brian summarizes Richard's response as:

  [...]

     RDFS has no "logical flaw";

  which I'm actually going to interpret it as Richard has not yet found a 
  logical flaw in RDFS.

  Did I get that right?

  Brian
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 10:04:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT