Thanks for the quick feedback... Jonas Liljegren wrote: > > Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com> writes: > > > A new language version, DAML+OIL (March 2001), available at > > [1], has been released by the Joint Committee [2]. The > > major new features are support for XML Schema data types and > > improved documentation. > > > > [1] http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-index > > > > [2] http://www.daml.org/committee/ > > Why is there a new daml:Class? Maybe that's a typo? Oh... no, I think it's motivated by the design of datatypes... See discussion of "disjointness of object and datatype domains" in Datatype Extension to DAML+OIL http://www.daml.org/2001/03/differences-daml+oil.html Wed, 28 Mar 2001 05:00:00 GMT > Why not place the datatype definitions in the same document? Even if > you use XMLSchema, the metadata must be representable in a RDF graph. I think we'll get there eventually... I tried to make that case but didn't really fill in the details sufficiently to make it clear to the rest of the folks working on DAML+OIL. If you'd like to look into the details and see if you can write the datatype definitions in RDF, I'd sure appreciate it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 08:36:21 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C0.50 : Wednesday, 11 January 2006 15:19:05 GMT