On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:05:22AM +0100, Aidan Hogan wrote:
> > As we're talking about a single redundant but true assertion, I don't
> > see the hurry.
>
> Agreed. No rush. From a reasoning point of view, all you're missing is
> some "SomeAgentClass a rdfs:Class ." memberships, which will probably be
> asserted in most cases, and aren't "crucial" in any case. As long as the
> intended usage of AgentClass is clear elsewhere, then no problems wrt.
> the formal specification.
Great. I'll get to this in the week after Pittsburgh so that
it appears with the next regularly scheduled Web on 1 November.
Thank you both for the clear explanations.
Tom
--
Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|