Re: basic decisions underlying DAML-ONT (defined classes)

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: Re: basic decisions underlying DAML-ONT (defined classes)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 00:31:38 +0000

> Maybe I'm missing something here, but can this not already be done in current DAML?
> The crucial point is in the following qoute from an earlier off-line email exchange with Dan:
> (excuse the now obsolete list-syntax):
> 
> > In DAML, equivalent isn't a relation between two
> > class *names*, but between two *classes*. So of course we can say:
> >
> >  <Class ID="human">
> >    <equivalentTo>
> >      <Class>
> >        <UnionOf parseType="daml:collection">
> >          <Class about="#Man"/>
> >          <Class about="#Woman"/>
> >        </UnionOf>
> >      </Class>
> >    </equivalentTo>
> >  </Class>

This does define human as the union of Man and Woman.  (You don't even need
the equivalentTo, I think.)  However, you can't use this to define the
class of all people with only rich friends, as a Restriction is not a
Class.

peter