- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:50:54 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> > The problem has to do with the status of knowledge bases that include > something like > > _:l rdf:type daml:List . > _:l daml:first ex:first . > _:l daml:rest _:l1 . > _:l1 daml:first ex:seconda . > _:l1 daml:rest daml:nil . > _:l daml:rest _:l2 . > _:l2 daml:first ex:secondb . > _:l2 daml:rest daml:nil . > > Is this legal DAML+OIL? It certainly doesn't *look* like legal DAML+OIL. > Lists are supposed to be lists, not trees. > > However, using DAML+OIL cardinality restrictions does not make the above > illegal, it just means that ex:seconda and ex:secondb have to > have the same > denotation. > > So, for DAML+OIL lists to behave as expected, there needs to be a > *syntactic* restriction on them, not a *semantic* one, which is all that > can be stated in DAML+OIL. > > peter > > Thanks I think I understood that. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 11:51:33 UTC