Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

On 4 Feb 2013, at 15:59, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> > Thanks, that helps a lot. Indeed it should be right at the top of 
> > the page, as it explains very 
> > tersely what the difference ontologically is that this makes. 
> > 
> >    :Container rdfs:subClassOf :Aggregation . 
> 
> Henry, I look(ed) at that as a risky jump to make in the proposal, and a fairly obvious consequence of it *assuming one accepts its assertions*.  Having someone call that out is evidence of understanding, so I'm happy my work here is done ;-)
> Just as in yours you mentioned some "optimizations".  I was managing down the proposal size by omitting those to the degree I could.
> 
Ok. Well  that does make it different from my "Simple" proposal, which 
was that :Aggregation was to be thought of as distinct from :Container . 

   :Aggregation owl:disjointWith :Aggregation 

the idea being - as mentioned in the teleconf - to show how one could get Aggregation like behavior with the spec as it currently is. 


Henry



> 
> Best Regards, John
> 
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/