Re: more on daml+oil.daml

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 10/02/01


From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: more on daml+oil.daml
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:00:34 -0500

> "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?

Precisely.

> 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.

Precisely.

> 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?

Mostly, but also to have daml+oil.daml be stock RDF.

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

peter


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