Errors in the March 2001 DAML+OIL specs

From: Jeff Heflin (
Date: 10/30/01

Hello everyone,

I've asked the students in my class to develop their own DAML+OIL
ontologies, and in the process we've been putting the March 2001 specs
through their paces. Here are a couple of bugs we've found:

1) In the Reference Description, the section on
rdf:parseType="daml:collection" does not use the correct syntax in its
examples. The example has:

<oneOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
  <Thing rdf:resource="#red"/>
  <Thing rdf:resource="#white"/>
  <Thing rdf:resource="#blue"/>

However, the attribute on the Thing elements should be rdf:ID or
rdf:about. Why? Each Thing element should be a typedNode (see production
6.13 in Section 6 of RDFM&S) and typed nodes must have either rdf:ID or
rdf:about attributes. The rdf:resource attribute is only used with
properties. Note that elsewhere in the Reference and in the Walkthrough
we consistently use rdf:about or rdf:ID.

2) Has the Disjoint class been deleted? daml+oil.daml has a comment to
this effect, but the Walkthru still contains two paragraphs on it.
Furthermore, it still appears in the index of the Reference document,
even though none of the text in the document describes it. If the class
has been removed from the language, then we need to remove all traces of
it from the documents. If it wasn't supposed to be removed, then we need
to rework it, because it's broken (I can explain in a separate message
if anyone's interested).

3) In the Housekeeping section of the Walkthru, the example of
daml:imports is missing the "/" before the end of the tag need to
indicate that it is an empty element.

4) This is kind of nitpicking, but in the Walkthru, Ian is listed under
Acknowledgements, even though he is already listed as an editor.

Is it too late to see if these errors are in the Note submitted to the
W3C? I don't know where the current version of it is, so I couldn't
check it myself.


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