Re: rdfs:Class vs. daml:Class ?

On March 20, Brian McBride writes:
> At 13:41 19/03/2002 +0000, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > About your paper: has there been any official response to the idea of 
> > using rdfs(fa) to
> > > redefine the model for rdf and rdfs?
> >
> >Not much. There is a proposal to indicate some triples as being
> >"non-asserted", which I believe can be seen as a very weak form of
> >layered architecture (but when I suggested this to Pat he was rather
> >dismissive).
> 
> I'd hate for folks to get the idea that RDFCore are being unresponsive to a 
> problem.

Sorry - didn't mean to imply that.

> This is the first I have heard of this proposal to redefine the model for 
> RDF and RDFS, so its not surprising there has been no 'official response', 
> at least from RDFCore.

Fair enough - it was never really a proposal, just a paper published as SWWS.

Ian


> 
> Brian
> 
> 
>