Re: ContainerHierarchy again

On 3/4/14 1:16 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
> At the last meeting there was a resolution to move back to the 
> previous positon
> on container hierarchies, the position called "the minimal consensual 
> position"
> in
>
> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ContainerHierarchy
>
> But that wiki page shows how the minimal consensual position we have 
> currently
> + the decisions we have previously come to lead to hierarchy
>
> IndirectContainer
>    DirectContainer
>       BasicContainer
>
> In RDF subclass relations DO NOT mean dependence of one subclass
> on another. You can easily deprecate classes without subclasses or
> superclasses without this leading to legacy issues.
>
> All the subclass relations mean is that you cannot have objects that 
> are in one
> class and not the superclass as shown by the picture
>
> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ContainerHierarchy#LDP-BC_.3C:_LDP-DC_.3C:_LDP-IC_.3C:_LDPC
>
>
> So I think it is misleading in fact to now show the classes as having 
> no relation to each
> other when we know they do.
>
> Henry

Is this addressed to me or everyone else?

"
In RDF subclass relations DO NOT mean dependence of one subclass
on another. You can easily deprecate classes without subclasses or
superclasses without this leading to legacy issues.
"

You appear (if this is directed to me) to be assuming that I am I 
disagreeing with, or contradicting, the claim above?

FWIW: subclasses are useful in the context of inference, when the 
relations in question (e.g., rdfs:subClassOf) are transitive in nature.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen