Re: DAML+OIL documentation ambiguous?

Matt Halstead <matt.halstead@auckland.ac.nz> writes:

> "This _could_ suggest..." was my point
>
> Just pointing out that someone could interpret that as meaning that
> specifying a property restriction demands that each instance of person
> has this property, especially when it's not easy to find a reference
> to the fact that property restrictions like this are optional.  I
> would bet object oriented people coming to DAML+OIL and trying to get
> to grips with DL based thinking could get the wrong interpretation.

Ah, okay.

Maybe a newcomer to DAML will be confused just by looking at that
snippet, but surely anyone who bothers reading about daml:Restriction
will also run into daml:cardinality, at which point the confusion that
you suggest will be resolved.

Anyhow, it seemed clear to me.

Cheers,
-- 
Yarden Katz <katz@underlevel.net>  |  Mind the gap