- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:59:48 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> > Pat > > > > we still have to *decide* whether we want to go the way in the documents you > > produced last week, or along the lines of the after hours conversation. > > I agree that we need to decide... > > DanBri, Graham, Jan, Mike Dean, everybody: please let's > make this decision consciously. Please form an opinion > and let us know. > > > > I can't find any rationale for the iff choice, other than it's > what was in the last call > spec. I find the lack of a proof of completeness of the rules > evidence of unnecessary complexity. *Why* does anybody > want rules 12a/12b? we use them as simple Horn rules to get evidence for the case rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf :xcd. :xcd rdfs:domain :ycd. rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf :xcr. :xcr rdfs:range :ycr. rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf :xpd. :xpd rdfs:domain :ypd. rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf :xpr. :xpr rdfs:range :ypr. RDFS-entails rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf :ycd. rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf :ycr. rdf:Property rdfs:subClassOf :ypd. rdf:Property rdfs:subClassOf :ypr. but this is of course not a sufficient way to derive rdfs:subClassOf triples (there are many other ways in owl...) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 16:59:57 UTC