Re: UPDATE: initial message concerning syntax

Enrico,

As you might guess, I disagree with what you wrote.
Of course, surface syntax should not give false impressions,
but I don't think this will be the case here:

Some of the typical DAML+OIL idiom corresonds >*exactly*< with the usual frame-based constructions. (for example the locally defined range-striction on a slot, which I used as example in my msg; same for cardinality constraints; same for "defined"-classes; etc).

Your point about behaviour requires more thinking, I agree:

> Even when dressed as a frame system a DL will always
> behave as a DL (with anonymous classes and automatic
> re-classification)

I know that Stefan Decker has been thinking about a restricted semantics of DAML+OIL which would indeed only deal with named classes (for instance to classify instances). 

So, in my view, there are two issues, one easy, one hard, both important:

- (easy): define frame-based modelling-idiom as syntactic constructions for DAML+OIL
- (hard): try to think what DAML+OIL would look like if it only dealt with named classes

Frank.
   ----