- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:47:06 +0100
- To: fmanola@mitre.org
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:40 AM 9/25/01 -0400, Frank Manola wrote: >Here's the motion: To resolve issue [?do we have an explicit issue?] by >deleting the restriction prohibiting cycles of subPropertyOf >properties. The meaning of a cycle of subPropertyOf properties is an >assertion that the properties involved in the cycle have the same >members. A more formal specification of the meaning is given in the >model theory. [This has the same form as the explanation in the >"subClassOf" motion, but is less intuitive for properties. I could >wordsmith this a bit, but it's probably safer to point to the model >theory]. I'm happy with the general intent. Some nit-picking: "...the properties involved in the cycle have the same members" Should this be: "... the [relational] extensions of properties involved in the cycle have the same members" ? "A more formal specification of the meaning is given in the model theory" I don't recall this point being explicitly addressed by the MT; would it be more accurate to say "... given by the model theory"? #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 09:51:05 UTC