Re: DAML+OIL (March 2001) released

Jonas Liljegren wrote:
> 
> Reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Mar/0105.html
> 
> And now some comments on this text about the datatype extension:
>         http://www.daml.org/2001/03/differences-daml+oil.html
[...]
> > This is achieved by maintaining a clear separation between instances
> > of "object" classes (those defined using our ontology language) and
> > instances of datatypes (defined using the XML Schema type
> > system). [...]
> 
> This solution is not in the spirit of RDF.

Yes, it's far from ideal.

[...]

> The committee lists both Ora Lassila and Tim Berners-Lee.  How can it
> be that they haven't objected to this new version?

I argued (with Tim) against splitting the domains; but
tools like OILed require the split in order to do
efficient reasoning, and while I eventually want to
get beyond that requirement, the group agreed it's
worth keeping for at least a little while longer;
but we agreed to note that it's a stop-gap solution:

  [[[
  RESOLVED: We will release an updated language release
  incorporating the current proposal, acknowledge the outstanding
  issues and concerns, and solicit feedback from the larger
  community.
  ]]]

  --        Joint Committee Minutes 20 February 2001
  http://www.daml.org/committee/minutes/2001-02-20.html

Ian, Frank, Peter, where is the acknowledgement that
some folks in the group don't like the split?

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/