- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:27:45 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote: > > 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: I agree: this is 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" > ? Your rewording is technically more correct; it's just that we didn't refer to the relational extension when we worded the corresponding motion about class cycles (i.e., we didn't say "the relational extensions of the classes"). > > "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"? Fine with me. Once again, the model theory doesn't talk explicitly about class cycles either, if I remember correctly. What it does do it define what classes and properties (or rather, their extensions!) are made up of. Inferring what a cycle means is left as an exercise for the reader. --Frank -- 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 Thursday, 27 September 2001 10:28:27 UTC