Re: ISSUE-43 ISSUE 41 - Proposed resolution for membership and classification

These proposals do not address my concerns [2], but if the working group 
really insists on having the constructs I will not object, but rather 
abstain.

I would proposed, though, to rephrase the proposed resolutions as 
follows to make sure they make some technical sense [the proposed typing 
and subclass statements in RIF are language constructs and not constant 
symbols]:

Proposed: Close Issue-43 by including in BLD subclass formulae of the
form a ## b.  In the RDF compatibility document,
## and rdfs:subClassOf will be connected appropriately, i.e. whenever a 
## b holds, a rdfs:subClassOf b is required to hold.

Proposed: Close Issue-41 by including in BLD membership formulae of the
form c # a.  In the RDF compatibility document, # and rdf:type will be 
connected appropriately, i.e. a # b holds iff a rdf:type b holds.


I would also like to see a resolution which says that we do not include 
membership and subclassing in Core, as proposed by Michael in [1].


Best, Jos

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Dec/0062.html

[2] doubts about the usefulness of the constructs; yet another ontology 
modeling language for the semantic Web

Chris Welty wrote:
> 
> 
> It's time to push now and start closing some of these age-old RIF issues.
> 
> My sense of this discussion is that the following proposal addresses 
> enough concerns of those who object to membership and classification in 
> BLD that they can live with it while still leaving something for those 
> who favor it.
> 
> Proposed: Close Issue-43 by including in BLD subclass formulae of the 
> form a rif:subClassOf b.  In the RDF compatibility document, 
> rif:subClassOf will be defined as a rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf.
> 
> Proposed: Close Issue-41 by including in BLD membership formulae of the 
> form c rif:type a.  In the RDF compatibility document, rif:type will be 
> defined to be equivalent to rdf:type.
> 
> I realize the latter begs the question why rif:type if it is the same as 
> rdf:type, but I'd like to handle that question separately.
> 
> So, if you object to these proposed resolutions let us know, otherwise 
> I'd like to close these on Tuesday.
> 
> -Chris
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but
certainty is absurd.
   - Voltaire