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