Re: the daml example

From: Dan Connolly (
Date: 01/09/01

Frank van Harmelen wrote:
> Deborah Mcguinness wrote:
> > The namespace error in this document results from the default
> > namespace being set to the daml+oil URI instead of the daml+oil-ex
> > URI.
> > [...]
> > I suggest that the error be corrected by changing the default
> > namespace to the URI of daml+oil-ex.daml. In addition, any
> > usage of resources defined in daml+oil.daml should specifically use
> > the daml namespace.
> Jessica,
> Thanks for spotting this and providing us with a fix.


> I will update the running copy of daml+oil-ex.daml as you suggested, but have two worries:
> [1] Stefan, how come your parser didn't spot this?, and

Because the bug is with the translation from intended-semantics
to RDF syntax; there's nothing wrong with this RDF syntax;
it just doesn't mean what you probably wanted to say.

Jessica wrote:

|Person is not defined in
|daml+oil.daml. As a result, Adam is
|declared to be of a type that does not exist. 

Er... that's sort of a closed-world reaction to this situation.
Adam is declared to be of a type that's not mentioned
in the daml+oil.daml document. There's nothing wrong with that.

> [2] Now there is pretty much no unqualified symbol in sight in the entire document, and it's beginning to look pretty ugly. Do namespaces have a habit of always getting in the way?

In a sense, yes. But I hope beauty of the syntax is not job #1 here;
ultimately, deployment of this should result in folks looking
at angle-brackets only in development/debug mode, not in ordinary use.

Dan Connolly, W3C

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST