W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2001

RE: Bugs in 2000/12 daml+oil reference on DAML collections

From: Dickinson, Ian J <Ian_J_Dickinson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:47:29 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F15C455@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Ian Horrocks [mailto:horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk] wrote:
> Another more radical solution that has just occurred to me is 
> to simply scrap Disjoint. It is completely redundant because 
> we can just say:
> 
> <rdfs:Class>
>   <daml:disjointUnionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
>     <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Car"/>
>     <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
>     <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/>
>   </daml:disjointUnionOf>
> </rdfs:Class>

This seems to me like a good suggestion, if Disjoint is the only instance
that we otherwise wish to add a daml:collection attribute to.  It would make
it much easier to formulate syntactic restrictions for a well-formed DAML
document.

Btw, is there any activity underway to formulate a DTD or XML schema for
DAML?

Cheers,
Ian

_______________________________________________________________________
Ian J. Dickinson    HP Labs, Bristol, UK    mailto:Ian_Dickinson@hp.com
Received on Monday, 15 January 2001 06:47:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT