W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Current Action List for RDFCore Working Group

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:49:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0109181747190.26328-100000@tux.w3.org>

I agree. We should amend RDFS to allow cycles in subClassOf and


On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Frank Manola wrote:

> I got hold of Sergey (who is trying to get out from under the hundreds
> of messages that piled up while he was away) by phone on the subclass
> cycle issue.  He said he'd be on the teleconference on Friday (so
> consider this just an interim FYI), but basically he said after thinking
> about the issue following the F2F, he didn't see that allowing cycles in
> subClassOf would make a big difference one way or the other.  He felt
> that not having the restriction against cycles was probably a more
> general way of handling them (since you could introduce
> application-specific restrictions if you wanted to), and that he
> wouldn't have a problem with removing the restriction against cycles if
> we wanted to conform with DAML on this.
> --Frank
> Brian McBride wrote:
> >
> snip
> >
> > ACTION 2001-08-31#2 Frank Manola
> >   chase Sergei for his reaction to this proposed
> > resolution to issue rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf when he returns
> > (or shortly thereafter
> >
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 17:51:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC