- From: Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:58:52 +0200
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Dave Reynolds wrote: > > Michael Kifer wrote: > >> In BLD, if we have a##b and b[foo->bar] then it does not follow that >> a[foo->bar]. But a true object-oriented extension (a la F-logic, for >> example) >> would add nonmon inheritance and a[foo->bar] would follow. > > The possibility that such an extension might be wanted is another good > argument why ## should not be in BLD. Such an interpretation of ## would > be in conflict with other interpretations such as RDFS/OWL and should > use a different predicate. > I'm confused now. My understanding so far was that the main argument against ## was that we do not need yet another subclass relation, since there already is one in rdfs and owl. But apparently rdfs:subclassOf cannot be extended to cover the above case. So apparently we do need something new, which can then be extended (in various ways) to cover both, rdfs:subclassOf and the above case (and other variants). Regards, Igor
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 10:59:13 UTC