- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:35:52 +0100
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
[...] > I actually said in the MT document that those rules weren't intended > to define a process or to be directly implemented. I wish Id never > mentioned closure rules: it was only intended to be a way of relating > the semantics together. right, I understand that, but still, inference rules can be inferenced why then not use e.g. owl properties for some of the rdfs-rules e.g. rdf:first a owl:FunctionalProperty. # and just have rdf:List rdfs:subClassOf a owl:TransitiveProperty. # instead of rule5 rdfs:subPropertyOf a owl:TransitiveProperty. # instead of rule3 I really can't see any problem with such an *implementation* at least not as far as I did tests with that (for all our testcases) (in a similar way, owl-rules could make use of e.g. math properties) -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:36:28 UTC