Re: more thoughts on daml+oil.daml

From: Frank van Harmelen (Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl)
Date: 10/05/01

Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "two documents concerning datatypes in RDFS"
Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: datatypes and RDF Schema"
In reply to: Dan Connolly: "Re: more thoughts on daml+oil.daml"
Next in thread: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: more thoughts on daml+oil.daml"
Reply: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: more thoughts 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:
> >
> > It occurs to me that we could include more of the ``semantics'' of DAML+OIL
> > in daml+oil.daml.  For example, we could do more with lists, perhaps
> > something like:
> [...]
> > Comments?

Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> Nifty. Go for it.

Yep. I'm all for, too.
One caveat: will the typed list for things like unionOf not break existing daml+oil ontologies? 

Frank.
   ----

Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "two documents concerning datatypes in RDFS"
Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: datatypes and RDF Schema"
In reply to: Dan Connolly: "Re: more thoughts on daml+oil.daml"
Next in thread: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: more thoughts on daml+oil.daml"
Reply: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: more thoughts 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