RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case

>
> 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