Re: Another try at subclass [Issue-43]

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Chris Welty wrote:
>>
>>
>> </chair>
>>
>> Back in August I proposed a "friendly amendment" for the 
>> rif:subClassOf relation (aka ##) saying that:
>>
>> rif:subClassOf rdfs:subproperty rdfs:subClassOf .
>>
<snip>
>> So before we give up on it, because I do think it would be useful to 
>> have in BLD, I'd like to see if this will make a difference to anyone, 
>> specifically the objectors to having rif:subClassOf (DaveR, Jos, ?).
> 
> I do think it helps a little.
> 
> It doesn't answer the question of why we are creating this semi-parallel 
> set of concepts in the first place.

Right - well, I'm not adding anything new there.  Many rule languages provide 
some simple subclass relation and almost all have some notion of types.  So 
providing this makes translation easier, and brings BLD closer to a lot of the 
early implementations we expect.  I don't think we'll reach consensus on how 
important this is, but clearly some WG members think it is important.

> However, it does address one of the sub-issues viz it helps us answer 
> the obvious question "so how do rif:type and rif:subClassOf related to 
> the similar sounding RDFS/OWL properties?". At a minimum if we put these 
> in BLD we need a clear answer to that question and this does that. Well 
> does half of it - would need a similar thing for rif:type (or whatever 
> the URI for # is).

I wanted to try one at a time, but yes the idea is that we would do a similar 
thing for rif:type.  I think it is equivalent to rdf:type, as yet I've seen no 
reason to believe otherwise.

-Chris


> 
> Dave

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 14:19:51 UTC