- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:19:08 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dave Reynolds wrote: > > Axel Polleres 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 . >> >> >> that would mean that each rif:subClassOf should be a rdf:subClassOf... >> aehm... shouldn't it be - if any - just the other way around? >> >> rdfs:subClassOf is more specific. > > I don't think so. The original objection to using rdfs:subClassOf was > the reflexivity. This permits rif:subClassof to not be reflexive. but rdfs:subclass implies all kinds of other things wwhich we don't want to be implied necessarily for rif:subClassOf on the other hand, right? e.g.: a rdfs:subClassOf b . x rdf:type a. RDFS-entails (even RDF entails) x rdf:type a. Do we also want: a rif:subClassOf b . x rdf:type b. RDFS-entails x rdf:type b. ?? (instead of *only*) If so, we also want to make rif:memberOf rdfs:subClassOf rdf:type yes? just for clarification... Axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres email: axel@polleres.net url: http://www.polleres.net/ rdf:Resource owl:differentFrom xsd:anyURI .
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 16:19:21 UTC