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

RE: DAML+OIL: Questions & Improvements.

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:25:12 -0500 (EST)
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: "King . Dany" <DKing@drc.com>, "'www-rdf-logic'" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101291818350.31796-100000@tux.w3.org>

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> > Syntactically however, it is... mostly (discrepancies: 1. RDF is requires
> > acyclic subclass relations, DAML+OIL allows cyclic subclass relations; 2.
> > DAML+OIL requires one syntax for cardinality to avoid exposed content, thus
> > other equivalent and legal RDF syntaxes are illegal for DAML+OIL
> > cardinality; 3. RDF allows only one range restriction per property, DAML+OIL
> > allows multiple; 4. the "daml:collection" doesn't exist in RDF).
>
> 1 and 3 are likely to change in RDFS.

Ahem! Pointer please to evidence for claim (1). Or a PaperTrail
(http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/PaperTrail).

Regarding (3), my inclination is to agree (and also fix rdfs:domain). The
important thing with domain/range is to define what they mean, not how
many times one can write down statements using them. The RDFS prose gets
this wrong imho.

Dan
Received on Monday, 29 January 2001 18:25:16 GMT

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