- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:27:52 -0500
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: > Yes, I agree. I think this is what Chris meant in the technical sense, but > he formulated the way he did in order to relate these constructs using > familiar terms. Also, although in the presentation syntax these things look > like # and ##, in the XML syntax they will be rif:subclassOf or something > like that. That was my expectation, yes. Does anyone care about Jos' wording vs. the one I suggested? If not (if no one cares) we'll use Jos' It is also my sense that no one would object to a resolution, as suggested, that Core does not have membership and classification. Again, please let me know if you object. -Chris > > > --michael > >> These proposals do not address my concerns [2], but if the working group >> really insists on having the constructs I will not object, but rather >> abstain. >> >> I would proposed, though, to rephrase the proposed resolutions as >> follows to make sure they make some technical sense [the proposed typing >> and subclass statements in RIF are language constructs and not constant >> symbols]: >> >> Proposed: Close Issue-43 by including in BLD subclass formulae of the >> form a ## b. In the RDF compatibility document, >> ## and rdfs:subClassOf will be connected appropriately, i.e. whenever a >> ## b holds, a rdfs:subClassOf b is required to hold. >> >> Proposed: Close Issue-41 by including in BLD membership formulae of the >> form c # a. In the RDF compatibility document, # and rdf:type will be >> connected appropriately, i.e. a # b holds iff a rdf:type b holds. >> >> >> I would also like to see a resolution which says that we do not include >> membership and subclassing in Core, as proposed by Michael in [1]. >> >> >> Best, Jos >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Dec/0062.html >> >> [2] doubts about the usefulness of the constructs; yet another ontology >> modeling language for the semantic Web >> >> Chris Welty wrote: >>> >>> It's time to push now and start closing some of these age-old RIF issues. >>> >>> My sense of this discussion is that the following proposal addresses >>> enough concerns of those who object to membership and classification in >>> BLD that they can live with it while still leaving something for those >>> who favor it. >>> >>> Proposed: Close Issue-43 by including in BLD subclass formulae of the >>> form a rif:subClassOf b. In the RDF compatibility document, >>> rif:subClassOf will be defined as a rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf. >>> >>> Proposed: Close Issue-41 by including in BLD membership formulae of the >>> form c rif:type a. In the RDF compatibility document, rif:type will be >>> defined to be equivalent to rdf:type. >>> >>> I realize the latter begs the question why rif:type if it is the same as >>> rdf:type, but I'd like to handle that question separately. >>> >>> So, if you object to these proposed resolutions let us know, otherwise >>> I'd like to close these on Tuesday. >>> >>> -Chris >>> >> -- >> Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it >> +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ >> ---------------------------------------------- >> Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but >> certainty is absurd. >> - Voltaire > -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@gmail.com Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2008 23:28:03 UTC