Re: more on daml+oil.daml

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

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

"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 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Next message: Dan Connolly: "Re: updated new model theory"
Previous message: Dan Connolly: "Re: including labels and comments in the ``definition'' of DAML+OIL"
In reply to: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "more on daml+oil.daml"
Next in thread: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: more on daml+oil.daml"
Reply: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: more on daml+oil.daml"
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