Re: enhancing Unambiguous to be domain-dependent

From: Dan Connolly (
Date: 05/16/01

Ian Horrocks wrote:
> Dan,
> DAML+OIL can express this already. e.g., 

nifty! I hadn't thought of it that way.

I don't tend to think in terms of cardinality.

> Note that I am not commenting on whether or not DAML+OIL needs to
> provide this idiom directly.

Yeah, that's a slippery slope.

These days, I'm largely
in favor of providing idioms like this directly;
i.e. issuing names for things that we can already
express other ways.

Dan Connolly, W3C

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