Re: more on daml+oil.daml

From: Dan Connolly (
Date: 10/02/01

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> While I'm at it,
> I think that the fancy syntax for lists should be removed from
> daml+oil.daml.

removed... as in written out longhand?

That would make it more likely that daml+oil.daml would
work with generic RDF tools, but it would make the
file a little harder to read.

I suppose the idea that folks should be able to read
daml+oil.daml is pretty far fetched.

Is compatibility with generic RDF tools your motivation?
or something else?

Dan Connolly, W3C

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