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