From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 02/26/01
Mike, I agree with Frank's comments both w.r.t. reification and w.r.t. the talk. Another small point: in your (excellent) summary table you refer to "concrete data types". Perhaps you should drop the "concrete" - we have now removed all mention of "concrete" from the daml+oil+dt proposal. Ian On February 26, Frank van Harmelen writes: > Mike Dean wrote: > > > I'd particularly appreciate any quick feedback on my new > > language feature matrix [3]. > > > > [3] http://www.daml.org/language/features.html > > 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! > > Frank. > ----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST