- 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