From: Jeff Heflin ([email protected])
Date: 01/30/01
Thanks for pointing this out Peter. What I really meant to say was
"...disallowing the odd semantics that occur when someone tries to
define restrictions on multiple properties within a single <Restriction>
element."
Jeff
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
>
> I'll have lots more comments on Jeff's proposal later, but I have one
> simple comment for now.
>
> From: Jeff Heflin <[email protected]>
> Subject: Suggested changes to concrete datatypes proposal
> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:26:31 -0500
>
> > 9) change the type of daml:onProperty to daml:UniqueProperty (so that a
> > daml:Restriction can have at most one daml:onProperty, disallowing the
> > odd semantics that occur when someone tries to define multiple
> > restrictions within a single <Restriction> element).
>
> This will not disallow Restrictions with multiple ``restrictions'', as it
> is possible to have both a hasClass and a has Value in one Restriction.
>
> peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST