From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 01/10/01
OK - it was just an idea. I have now put it back. Ian On January 10, Stefan Decker writes: > 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