Re: Concrete types: next steps?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 02/01/01

Next message: Dan Connolly: "Re: Concrete types: next steps?"
Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: Concrete types: next steps?"
In reply to: Dan Connolly: "Re: Concrete types: next steps?"
Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: Concrete types: next steps?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

If there are going to be other proposals, please make them be proposals,
and not opinion pieces.

I'm not asking for *complete* proposals, but I strongly believe that
proposals should have sufficient technical details that would allow readers
to understand how DAML+OIL+XXX would work, both syntactically *and*
semantically.

peter

Next message: Dan Connolly: "Re: Concrete types: next steps?"
Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: Concrete types: next steps?"
In reply to: Dan Connolly: "Re: Concrete types: next steps?"
Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: Concrete types: next steps?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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