From: Stefan Decker ([email protected])
Date: 01/10/01
Hi, >Finally, and a little more controversially, I deleted "item" from the >list syntax section: we don't use it, and I presume that it isn't our >intention to provide a general purpose list implementation. Scream now >if you object to this. *SCREAM* ;-) I would object this. The reason: without an item construct one may have to repeat information. An example: Given the following class definitions: <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Car"/> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Person"/> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/ Expressing that these classes are disjoint would require to repeat either known information (e.g. that these are classes) or new information. As in: <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Car"/> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Person"/> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/> </daml:Disjoint> An item construct does avoid the repetition of information. All the best, Stefan >The latest version is in the usual place: > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/daml+oil > >I am currently working to update the changes file - I will mail again >when that is in place. > >Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST