From: Stefan Decker (stefan@db.stanford.edu)
Date: 01/10/01
Hi,
>Finally, and a little more controversially, I deleted "item" from the
>list syntax section: we don't use it, and I presume that it isn't our
>intention to provide a general purpose list implementation. Scream now
>if you object to this.
*SCREAM* ;-)
I would object this. The reason:
without an item construct one may have to repeat information.
An example:
Given the following class definitions:
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Car"/>
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/
Expressing that these classes are disjoint would require
to repeat either known information (e.g. that these are classes)
or new information. As in:
<daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Car"/>
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/>
</daml:Disjoint>
An item construct does avoid the repetition of information.
All the best,
Stefan
>The latest version is in the usual place:
>
> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/daml+oil
>
>I am currently working to update the changes file - I will mail again
>when that is in place.
>
>Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST