- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:13:36 +0100
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 16 Aug 2007, at 16:04, Jos de Bruijn wrote: > <snip/> > >>> rif:subclassOf is not a new concept. It is there in >>> every standard OO language. Jos' arg was that it is a new word in >>> the >>> vocabulary, and Dave was questioning whether RIF should define >>> such a >>> concept (incl. rdfs:subclassOf) in the first place. >> >> I'm just hoping it makes what you proposed a little more >> palatable. But >> let's see - Dave and Jos? Does Michael need still more coffee or >> do I? > > My argument was that there are already semantic Web languages for > defining ontologies (including the subclass relation), so that RIF > should probably not invent a new vocabulary for defining ontologies > (or > classifications), but rather show how existing vocabularies for > ontology > definition (including (subsets of) RDFS) can be combined with the RIF. [snip] If rif:subClassOf turns out to be too contentious, one might choose a different name e.g., rif:subType, or something like that. (I personally might have preferred something like "subSetOf" for rdfs and owl subsumption, but it wasn't up to me and my time machine is on the fritz again.) (I know that the "rif" is supposed to make all the difference in the world, and of course, rif:subClassOf is a different symbol; I just can imagine furor over it; if such furor comes, a simple renaming is an option.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 15:12:35 UTC