From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 10/02/01
From: Dan Connolly <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: more on daml+oil.daml
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:00:34 -0500
> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> >
> > While I'm at it,
> >
> > I think that the fancy syntax for lists should be removed from
> > daml+oil.daml.
>
> removed... as in written out longhand?
Precisely.
> That would make it more likely that daml+oil.daml would
> work with generic RDF tools, but it would make the
> file a little harder to read.
Precisely.
> I suppose the idea that folks should be able to read
> daml+oil.daml is pretty far fetched.
>
> Is compatibility with generic RDF tools your motivation?
> or something else?
Mostly, but also to have daml+oil.daml be stock RDF.
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST