[Fwd: Minor syntactic bug in DAML+OIL 2001/03]

From: Frank van Harmelen (Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl)
Date: 11/05/01

Michel Klein, a colleague of mine at the VU,
has spotted some more bugs/buglets in our spec. 

It seems to me that 
[a] he is right, and
[b] they should not be hard to fix.

Peter can we still catch this before submitting to W3C?


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Minor syntactic bug in DAML+OIL 2001/03
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:34:44 +0100
From: Michel Klein <Michel.Klein@cs.vu.nl>
Organization: Vrije Universiteit - computer science
To: Frank van Harmelen <frankh@cs.vu.nl>

Looking at the DAML+OIL specification, I just found that there is a
small syntactic mistake in the definition of the properties
"equivalentTo" and "sameClassAs". Both use the unqualified <comment>
property where obviously <rdfs:comment> is meant.

To continue, I think that there is also something strange with use of
the namespace qualifier in property definitions.

A few properties in DAML+OIL (equivalentTo, sameClassAs, samePropertyAs,
sameIndividualAs, differentIndividualForm) are defined as instances of
the unqualified <Property>, i.e., as instance of
http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil#Property. However, Property is not
defined in DAML+OIL. From the RDFS point of view, this means that the
"properties" are not properties, but just resources of an unknown but
named type. 

To my understanding, either daml:Property should be defined (in the same
way as daml:Class), or the mentioned properties should be instances of

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