Re: [Fwd: Rules for restrictions]

From: Dan Connolly ([email protected])
Date: 01/04/01

> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:04:39 -0500
> From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <[email protected]>

> My questions about the DAML+OIL spec as revised may be based on ignorance of
> meetings I wasn't at, in which case I apologize - please accept them as
> clarification questions.
> 1. restrictedBy and subClassOf seem to be synonyms.

Yes; that's a consequence of

     Proposed revision to daml-ont Ian Horrocks (Wed, Nov 22 2000)

which was (with small exceptions; see the Dec 7/8 minutes) accepted.

>  Why both with both?

er... no particular reason; just history:

        1. rdfs:subClassOf coined Jan '99
        2. daml:restrictedBy coined Oct '00
        3. daml+oil:restrictedBy proposed replacement for
                and turns out to have the same semantics as
                        Nov '00

and we haven't yet decided to get rid of either of them.

> 2.

other answers separately...

Dan Connolly, W3C

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