W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2002

Re: DAML: restricting number of elements in a list

From: Steven Gollery <sgollery@cadrc.calpoly.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:03:11 -0800
Message-ID: <3C694ACF.8D8D666C@cadrc.calpoly.edu>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
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
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 12:33:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:41 GMT