Re: DAML briefing to RDF IG

From: Frank van Harmelen (
Date: 02/26/01

Mike Dean wrote:

> I'd particularly appreciate any quick feedback on my new
> language feature matrix [3].
> [3]

Neat. One comment:
you have a tick for reification under DAML+OIL.
Although it is true that reified statements are allowed in DAML+OIL expressions, we do not give them any particular semantics beyond what is already defined in RDF(S) (if anything). So I think it would not be fair to claim this as a "feature" of DAML+OIL? Also, I think there is a broad feeling in the committee that the reification of RDF(S) is either broken, or not what you want, or both, and if we wanted reification in DAML+OIL, it would probably look quite different from what RDF(S) does now?

I also quickly looked at your talk. Good!


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