- From: Francesco Cannistrà <fracan@inwind.it>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:11:56 +0200
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Yuzhong Qu" <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
> the need for "subClassOf" arises, I think, from .... Yuzhong, sorry for the incorrect reply to your post. The fact is that when approached the problem I detected different possible solution and finally chose that one I posted as the most suitable. In others of my possible solutions (that however are too much articulated and about which I had many dubts) the subClassOf seemed to me as necessary (even if, looking at them now after your comments, perhaps it was not). Recently I only tried to investigate again whether it was possible to do the same thing in the RDFS domain without the need of OWL. But I have done it hurriedly and absent-mindeldy, and then I made some banal errors when I unconsciously applied the semantic I detected to resolve the problem (and that I implemented in the OWL domain) into a domain where that semantics does not apply. Thanks for yuor comments. Francesco
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 06:12:24 UTC