- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:07:52 +0100
- To: graham@wideman-one.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Graham,
In
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0027.html
you raised an issue with the RDF recommendations which was captured in
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance
as
[[[
It is suggested that the novel use of subclass and instance relationships
in RDF will be hard for those familiar with object oriented programming to
understand and that a clearer discussion of the application of these
relationships, especially when the same resource is both an instance and a
subClass would be helpful.
]]]
As recorded in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0028.html
the RDFCore WG has decided to close this issue on the grounds
- subClassOf and rdf:type are defined in the RDF Model Theory
- the RDF Schema spec and RDF Primer provide adequate descriptions of
these properties
The formal wording of the resolution is a bit bare, but basically what this
means is that the WG has decided that the new model theory document
(http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/) provides a clear formal specification of the
meaning of this construct, and the new rdf primer provides a clear
(http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/) informal informal treatment.
Please could you respond to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org
indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of this issue.
Brian McBride
RDFCore co-chair
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 10:09:20 UTC