From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 10/08/01
From: Frank van Harmelen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: more thoughts on daml+oil.daml
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 18:03:33 +0200
>
> > "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.
> ----
I don't think so, except if you did something like
foo unionOf [rdfs:Class,xsd:Integer]
which was not (very) legal to begin with.
peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST