Jonathan, A specific point and a general point: Specific point: --------------- Jonathan Borden wrote: > class ex:baz ( > oneOf( > property ex:a, > property ex:b, > property ex:c > ) > > would not _have been_ immediately obvious to me, this is not a legal construction in our proposal for OWL [1] (nor is it in DAML+OIL [2]). In both of these, oneOf defines a class by enumerating all its instances. That's not what the above does. General point: -------------- Forgive me for asking, but I'm a bit at a loss as to the goal of your efforts. - Is your goal to make a better abstract syntax for the proposal in [1]? - If so, better in what sense? Easier to XML-ise? Easier to parse? By machines? By humans? - Or making our proposal in [1] more like DAML+OIL? In what way. Can you explain (or perhaps: repeat) what you are aiming for? Sorry if this is a question I should have known the answer to, Frank. ----- [1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/frame.html [2] http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference.html#oneOf-defReceived on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 16:21:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT