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

From: Ian Horrocks (
Date: 11/06/01

On November 6, Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:
> Here are some more thoughts on where
> 	equivalentTo
> 	sameClassAs
> 	samePropertyAs
> 	sameIndividualAs
> 	differentIndividualForm
> belong.
> Currently I have them in rdf:Property.
> Can any of them be usefully be put into daml:ObjectProperty?
> What you could get is letting them have inverses, or be transitive, or be
> unambiguous.  However, I don't think that we really want to do this for
> *these* properties, so I don't see any advantage to making them be
> daml:ObjectProperty.

I agree - in fact this is another case where we deliberately chose not
to define daml+oil in a way that (appears to) exploit the semantics of


> peter

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