Re: DAML+OIL Expressivity Question

From: Jim Hendler (
Date: 11/08/01

At 4:39 PM -0800 11/8/01, Deborah McGuinness wrote:
>that is doable.
>there will be a number of daml:foo s  and they will have a lot of arguments
>and a lot of implications  thus the english description of them will not be
>compact but doable.
>I guess then i should add a request to what i said people might send me - a
>proposed daml syntax for the new request as well.
>i am not expecting any one person to send everything  but eventually we want
>to fill in the template.
>And on the notion of DAML+OIL layers,  I would claim that we will put the
>daml:foos in a non-core layer.
>While we at stanford will want to update our daml parsers to understand the
>fancy foo's we dont want to break all of the existing tools every time we
>add a new foo.
>while the daml+oil core may find a fair amount of stability, i expect the
>foos to keep growing.

from a joint committee perspective that's fine.  From a WG 
perspective, we are trying to finalize a proposal - I don't think we 
will propose layers, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. 
What we are trying to propose is the core.
Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  College Park, MD 20742

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