From: pat hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 01/09/01
Mike Dean wrote: >My opinion (written before Frank's latest message): > >I used only about= in most of the DAML I've generated, but >have come to believe that ID= is the preferred idiom >(especially for Classes and Properties). ID= simplifies >the naming issues and signals the author's intent that this >is the "primary" definition of the object. Conversely, >about= signals the author's intent that he is making an >assertion about "someone else's" object. I think this gets to the heart of the issue. Is such an 'intent' actually meaningful in the language? Does it have any semantic content? If not, then it is probably a mistake to give users the impression that they are signalling something that they are in fact not saying, even if it makes them feel better. Either they should be told clearly that the apparent distinction isnt in fact a meaningful distinction, or else the language should be modified so that the distinction they want to make is in fact reflected in the semantics somewhere. >Two IDs can exist for a given URI only in the same page. A >DAML Validator should issue a warning if multiple IDs exist >for the same name. It should also probably suggest that > > about="#name" > >be replaced with > > ID="name" > >I think DAML+OIL should continue to support both ID= and >about= and that "best practice" should encourage the >appropriate use of both. As I understand the situation, there isnt an appropriate use for both right now, since they mean the same thing. Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST