- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:27:39 -0400
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
So returning to the point, you would need to restrict the # relation in RIF/OWL combinations further than they are in RIF/RDFS, and that's all? What's the restriction? -Chris Michael Kifer wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:01:51 +0200 > Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > >>>>>> Also, doesn't >>>>>> BLD allow the range and domain of # to be much larger than OWL-DL does for type? >>>>> That has already been taken care of by the restrictions imposed by RIF/OWL-DL >>>>> combo. >>>> Such restrictions are currently not there, but they could be added. >>> My understanding is that the restrictions are there >>> for ...[rdfs:subclassOf->...] and we simply need to re-use them for ##. >> Well, not for subclassof (this plays no role in RIF-OWL DL >> compatibility), but it is there for rdf:type. > > yes. I keep sliding into that rdfs:subclassOf heresy :-) > -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@gmail.com Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 19:28:26 UTC