Re: subclasses (RDF vocabulary definitions)

1. Brian, you got the idea right.
2. As the meaning of "logical flaw" has emerged, it would be more accurate to say that Richard never claimed that RDFS has a "logical flaw" with respect to the definition of "rdfs:subClassOf".  What I do claim is that "xxx:properSubClassOf" is a "better" concept than "rdfs:subClassOf".  But that's an issue that's hard to pin down (as evidenced by the discussion that has already taken place) , and I don't want to pursue it in this forum.
3. It would also be accurate to say that Richard has not yet found a "logical flaw" in the definition of "rdfs:Class".  In fact, I  am still struggling to understand what the definition of "rdfs:Class" is, i.e., I don't know what the Individuals of "rdfs:Class" are. But again, I don't want to pursue that issue with the RDF-interest group.  I will continue to study it on my own, and all of you can get on with your work.
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brian McBride 
  To: Richard H. McCullough ; Jon Hanna ; www-rdf-interest@w3.org 
  Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:04 AM
  Subject: Re: subclasses (RDF vocabulary definitions)


  At 05:45 22/11/2002 -0800, Richard H. McCullough wrote:

  Brian summarizes Richard's response as:

  [...]

     RDFS has no "logical flaw";

  which I'm actually going to interpret it as Richard has not yet found a 
  logical flaw in RDFS.

  Did I get that right?

  Brian