- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:12:22 -0400
- To: Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>
- Cc: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, 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). I think rdfs:subclassOf or rdfs:type can be extended. But Dave's argument is a logical fallacy anyway :-) I cannot even understand what he means by "should use a different predicate". ## is a different predicate. Otherwise we would not be arguing. cheers --michael
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 16:13:52 UTC