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