Re: Rules for restrictions

From: Dan Connolly (
Date: 01/04/01

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> My questions about the DAML+OIL spec as revised may be based on ignorance of
> meetings I wasn't at, in which case I apologize - please accept them as
> clarification questions.

> 2. sameClassAs and equivalentTo; same comment as 1except for domain and
> range constraints.
> 3. samePropertyAs and equivalentTo; same comment as 2.

See my answer to comment 2, then.

>  Are we suggesting
> that ontology builders in turn should define "sameCarAs" and "sameVehicleAs"
> properties?

No, I don't think so; There's no W3C recommendation regarding
cars that we feel obliged to support.

> This is the example being set. I found that when converting
> between different syntaxes, one has to introduce daml:equivalentTo  as part
> of that translation, because different syntaxes have different abilties to
> map a graph into a tree. I missed it being defined by rdfs and now I see it
> has slipped out of daml.

er... huh? I'm not aware of any decision to get rid of

It's there:

	<Property ID="equivalentTo">

	$Id: daml+oil.daml,v 1.2 2001/01/02 19:15:55 mdean Exp $

Hmm.. it's not used in
nor mentioned in

and I don't see it in "Appendix One: List of all language elements"
$Revision: 1.1 $ of $Date: 2001/01/03 18:38:43 $ 

So yes, it does seem to be slipping out. Frank, please put it back.

> A problem I see in general is that DAML may be an authoring langauge, but
> retrictions on what one can say about things in sepcific places may make it
> dfficult to output general DAML.
> For example, if I know two things are equivalent i must check to see whether
> they ar classes before tring to write it in DAML.

Only if you want RDFS-only agents to grok.

Dan Connolly, W3C

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST