- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:39:47 +0200
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Moral: > The WG had a fairly severe division that was content-free. > Test cases help elucidate. wrong, wrong, wrong. Your examples only show that the restriction to named classes doesn't formally restrict the expressiveness of the language (since you can always introduce "gensym'd" class names in a place where you would use a class expression). The point of the "divisive issue" was not that the restriction to named classes only makes the language formally less expressive, but that - nested expressions it make the life of tool implementors harder (simple example: the clunkiest part of OILed is editing these nested unnamed expressions), and also it makes the - they are one of the hard parts for people to learn/read in the language - many appliers report that they only use named classes anyway So, the issue is not a formal simplification, but a pragmatic/conceptual simplification. I though we went through all this in A'dam? Frank. ----
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 09:42:25 UTC