From: Ian Horrocks ([email protected])
Date: 01/05/01
On January 4, Dan Connolly writes:
>
> > Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:04:39 -0500
> > From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <[email protected]>
>
> > 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