Re: daml+oil+concrete includes XML Schema syntax? [was: ... next steps?]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 02/01/01

I would turn things around and ask why there would be any reason to not use
XML Schema datatypes directly.

Using XML Schema datatypes directly instead of translating them is much
better in terms of reuse and extension.  If reuse and extension is not one
of our goals, then I have lots of suggestions on how to change the syntax
of DAML+OIL for the better.

Translating XML Schema datatype constructors requires work.  

Adding XML Schema datatype-derived constructors to DAML+OIL (abstract)
classes requires a rethink of the semantics.


From: Dan Connolly <>
Subject: daml+oil+concrete includes XML Schema syntax? [was: ... next steps?]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:03:39 -0600

> Are you proposing to extend DAML+OIL syntax to include
> XML Schema syntax? I don't see any reason to do that.
> We can express things like minInclusive in the
> same style that we express domain, range, cardinality,
> etc., no?
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C
> office: tel:+1-913-491-0501
> pager:
>   (put return phone number in from/subject)

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