Re: Another try at subclass

With those amendments I withdraw my objection and would abstain, rather 
than object, on a formal vote.

["*so many*"? I've obviously worked with the wrong rule languages. 
Outside of F-logic I've not worked with any rule systems which include 
these as hardwired constructs.]

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Chris Welty wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> [Hoping to grab those last few free cycles before people go away for the 
> next two weeks]
> 
> </chair>
> At this point I have heard no objection to this proposal, so I will try 
> to make it a little more precise and add the rif:type relation as well. 
> Basically, Jos and Dave, I am hoping to hear from you by email that you 
> would not object (I you can live with) the following amendment, which 
> would live (I believe) in the RDF compatibility document:
> 
> rif:subClassOf rdfs:subproperty rdfs:subClassOf .
> 
> This plus the transitivity semantics given to by Michael already in BLD, 
> should  addresses the concern regarding the relationship to 
> rdfs:subClassOf.
> 
> Finally, I suggest that either:
> rif:type owl:sameAs rdf:type
> or we just use rdf:type
> 
> Note that this still requires the semantics to say:
> 
> For all elements eo, ec, es ∈ D, the following must hold:
> mint(Iisa(eo, ec), Isub(ec,es))   ≤t   Iisa(eo, es)
> 
> (which is already in the semantics for #)
> 
> The other objection to having Rif:type and rif:subclassof is why do we 
> even need it.  The answer there is that many people (in the WG) seem to 
> want it and it definitely helps address our coverage requirement since 
> they are part of *so many* rule languages.
> 
> I realize that this is not enough for agreement, but I hope it is enough 
> to remove objections.
> 
> <chair>
> 
> -Chris
> 
> 
> 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 .
>>>
>>> Michael was not opposed, he thought that it was obvious.  Jos replied 
>>> as below, indicating some possible softness on the point.  I don't 
>>> think DaveR responded. But I didn't push on it as some other thing 
>>> must have come up (like vacation probably), and the thread ended with 
>>> Jos' message below.
>>
>> I think we discussed it briefly at a telecon.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> Dave
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 10:03:08 UTC