- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:56:45 +0000
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
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've already indicated that this is enough for me to abstain rather than vote against. My preference remains to just not have this at all. > 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. Why? Given the equivalence introducing a synonym seems pointless. Though again I won't formally object to this, it's just one more nail in the coffin of my enthusiasm for RIF. Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 14:57:13 UTC