W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case

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>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCEOFCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

>
> 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT