- 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>
I agree. We should amend RDFS to allow cycles in subClassOf and subPropertyOf. Dan 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