Re: including labels and comments in the ``definition'' of DAML+OIL

From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 10/02/01

Next message: Dan Connolly: "Re: more on daml+oil.daml"
Previous message: Dan Connolly: "Re: XML schema and RDF datatypes [was: comments...]"
In reply to: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "including labels and comments in the ``definition'' of DAML+OIL"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I'm proposing that the official RDFS introductions in DAML+OIL
> (daml+oil.daml) be stripped of all the labels, comments, etc.  This would
> mean that they would not have to show up the model theory for DAML+OIL.
> 
> Comments?

Er... I could live without the comments... they say
more than they should, given the level of review they get...
but the labels seem worthwhile.

I don't understand how the contents of daml+oil.daml has
any impact on the DAML model theory.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Next message: Dan Connolly: "Re: more on daml+oil.daml"
Previous message: Dan Connolly: "Re: XML schema and RDF datatypes [was: comments...]"
In reply to: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "including labels and comments in the ``definition'' of DAML+OIL"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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