Re: more thoughts on daml+oil.daml

From: Frank van Harmelen ([email protected])
Date: 10/05/01


> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> >
> > It occurs to me that we could include more of the ``semantics'' of DAML+OIL
> > in daml+oil.daml.  For example, we could do more with lists, perhaps
> > something like:
> [...]
> > Comments?

Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> Nifty. Go for it.

Yep. I'm all for, too.
One caveat: will the typed list for things like unionOf not break existing daml+oil ontologies? 

Frank.
   ----


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