Re: Current Action List for RDFCore Working Group

Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> >Here's a proposal (or motion) wording: "to resolve issue
> >rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf by allowing cycles of subClassOf
> >properties".
> 
> Actually, all we have to do is delete the current restriction that
> specifies that cycles are forbidden. "Allowing" is the default,
> presumably, in the absence of prohibitions.
> 

I agree we need to delete the current restriction.  However, given that
the issue is "*no* cycles in subClassOf" the problem appears to be that
there *is* a prohibition :-)  Fine:  change the wording to "to resolve
issue rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf by deleting the restriction
prohibiting cycles of subClassOf properties, with the meaning of a cycle
of subClassOf properties being an assertion that the classes involved
have the same members."

-- 
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

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 14:55:58 UTC