``universal use'' languages

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

• Next message: Dan Connolly: "on disjointness motivation"
• Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: daml+oil+concrete includes XML Schema syntax? [was: ... next steps?]"
• Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: ``universal use'' languages"
• Reply: Dan Connolly: "Re: ``universal use'' languages"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Frank mentioned that one possibility for DAML+OIL was to be a language for
``universal use''.  I strongly agree with Ian that that was *not* our charter.
Further, I would be interested in seeing if anyone has either
1/ a language that is intended for such ``universal use'', or
2/ requirements that such a language should meet.

peter

PS:  By the way, any answer to 1/ would necessarily include an answer to 2/.

• Next message: Dan Connolly: "on disjointness motivation"
• Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: daml+oil+concrete includes XML Schema syntax? [was: ... next steps?]"
• Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: ``universal use'' languages"
• Reply: Dan Connolly: "Re: ``universal use'' languages"
• 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