From: Frank van Harmelen ([email protected])
Date: 01/11/01
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > A more substantive comment: It is not really true that DAML+OIL does not > have any semantics for arbitrary RDF triples. In fact DAML+OIL provides > (perhaps) the first real semantics for such triples. It it just that the > semantics provided is just the obvious one---that the interpretation of > the subject is related to the interpretation of the object by the > interpretation of the predicate. This is sort of implied by the mixing note. I've removed the word "only", so that the sentence now says: "As stated above, DAML+OIL assigns a specific meaning to certain RDF triples." whereas it used to say: "As stated above, DAML+OIL assigns a specific meaning only to certain RDF triples. This, plus the comment in the note make the text sufficiently correct, I think. Frank. ----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST