Re: DTTF: List Ontology test case

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
> I certainly don't dispute that saying the daml:Lists constraints
> normatively in English would be a good thing.

I was thinking that the OWL MT would have the normative definition of an
owl:List.

>
> It's just I find it an odd exception if we cannot use OWL to say things
> that it is clearly capable of saying about other things, when we are
trying
> to build a description of itself, such as daml:first being a
> UniqueProperty. i.e. my position is having normatively bootstrapped in
> English, that OWL is then capable of describing some aspects of itself.
>

I agree, but that is an entirely different issue (one that I think was
prematurely closed - btw)

Jonathan