From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 01/04/01
> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:04:39 -0500
> From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
> 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.
>
> 1. restrictedBy and subClassOf seem to be synonyms.
Yes; that's a consequence of
Proposed revision to daml-ont Ian Horrocks (Wed, Nov 22 2000)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2000Nov/0094.html
which was (with small exceptions; see the Dec 7/8 minutes) accepted.
> Why both with both?
er... no particular reason; just history:
1. rdfs:subClassOf coined Jan '99
2. daml:restrictedBy coined Oct '00
3. daml+oil:restrictedBy proposed replacement for
daml:restrictedBy,
and turns out to have the same semantics as
rdfs:subClassOf
Nov '00
and we haven't yet decided to get rid of either of them.
> 2.
[...]
other answers separately...
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST