From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 01/04/01
On January 4, Dan Connolly writes: > er... huh? I'm not aware of any decision to get rid of > daml:equivalentTo. > > It's there: > > <Property ID="equivalentTo"> > > > -- http://www.daml.org/2000/12/daml+oil.daml > $Id: daml+oil.daml,v 1.2 2001/01/02 19:15:55 mdean Exp $ > > Hmm.. it's not used in > > http://www.daml.org/2000/12/daml+oil-ex.daml > nor mentioned in > http://www.daml.org/2000/12/daml+oil-walkthru.html equivalentTo is little used because we mostly use the more specific sameClassAs and samePropertyAs properties, which are subPropertiesOf equivalentTo and subClassOf/subPropertyOf respectively. As you know, we did it this way because of the range and domain constraints on subClassOf and subPropertyOf. > and I don't see it in "Appendix One: List of all language elements" > of http://www.daml.org/2000/12/reference.html > $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. Yes, you can still use equivalentTo, but you loose the RDFS subClass/PropertyOf implication. Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST