Re: DAML briefing to RDF IG

From: Ian Horrocks (
Date: 02/26/01


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


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]
> 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