Re: DAML: restricting number of elements in a list

Ian,

Are you saying that the use of List is restricted to defining DAML itself? Or is it legal for an
ontology to define a property whose range is daml:List? (I understand now that the items in a
List are unordered, I just want to find out whether I can use List in my own definitions or not.)

Steven

Ian Horrocks wrote:

> On February 11, Steven Gollery writes:
> > >
> > > Ian,
> > >
> > > It seems to me that the concept of "order" is fundamental in describing
> > > elements of many ontologies. Why was the decision made not to include this in
> > > DAML?
> > >
> > > Steven Gollery
> > >
> >
> > Obviously, this is an overstatement. It is perfectly possible to define the equivalent of a
> > linked list, as DAML-S does in its "nextProcessComponent" property, which provides a notion
> > of "order". What I was really wondering here is: why was the decision made that a daml:list
> > would be unordered?
>
> daml:list is part of the syntax of the language and is used to
> represent sets of classes, e.g., in a conjunction. As you know, sets
> are not ordered.
>
> Ian
>