W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2001

Re: UPDATE: initial message concerning syntax

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:02:30 +0100
Message-ID: <3C1FCB06.B08278D7@cs.vu.nl>
To: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
CC: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, mdean@bbn.com, lynn.stein@olin.edu, hendler@cs.umd.edu, connolly@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org

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

Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2001 18:03:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:03 UTC