From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 01/05/01
On January 4, Dan Connolly writes: > > > 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. The original daml+oil proposal deliberately tried to keep changes to a minimum - hence the retention of restrictedBy. The redundancy was discussed in Washington but it was decided that restrictedBy should be retained - I think the reason given was that it seemed more "natural" and/or would cause less confusion. Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST