Re: more thoughts on daml+oil.daml

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 10/08/01


From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: Re: more thoughts on daml+oil.daml
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 18:03:33 +0200

> 
> > "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.
>    ----

I don't think so, except if you did something like

   foo unionOf [rdfs:Class,xsd:Integer]

which was not (very) legal to begin with.
	

peter


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