- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:40:39 +0100 (BST)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 27 Jun 2003, Brian McBride wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 23:44, pat hayes wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > >If so, then Owl want a stronger notion of subClassOf than that proposed > > >in this document for rdfs:subClassOf. > > > > It will want to impose stronger conditions on the meaning of that term, yes. > > I had my stronger/weaker notions mixed up apparently. I had taken > stronger to mean more restrictive, i.e. that > > c1 owl:subClassOf c2 > > |= > > c1 rdfs:subClassOf c2 > > But that isn't the case, right? Can someone please provide me with a concrete counterexample of this, if it's not the case? -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I have nothing to fear.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 10:43:23 UTC