- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:04:50 -0500
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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. > Great! That makes RDF considerably more expressive; now we have a way to say that two classes have the same members. Pat >--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 >> > >-- >Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation >202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 >mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752 -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 18:04:45 UTC