Because <> is an authority about an agent, no an agent itself. 

Forgive any typos, sent while on the run.

On Aug 28, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Ray, can you explain why this doesn't work if the range of bf:agent is bf:Agent? Thanks, kc

On 8/27/15 1:55 PM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

   bf:agent   <


And again it depends on how/whether we define a range for bf:agent.  If we define the range to be class bf:Agent, then no, we cannot.  I think most of us are inclined not to want to restrict the vocabulary in this manner, and to allow such a contraction.

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600