W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: daml:item - still confused

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:51:09 +0200
To: "Jim Hendler <hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8CD7F8EB.C5CDD395-ONC1256D58.00723CB4-C1256D58.00729011@agfa.be>


Jim, I would second that proposal (and I suggested it
a long time ago). We use it a lot (now as :item) eg
in the actual test cases proof I counted 196 occurences.

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                                       
                      Jim Hendler                                                                                                      
                      <hendler@cs.umd.e        To:       webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>                                                 
                      du>                      cc:                                                                                     
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  daml:item - still confused                                                    
                      www-webont-wg-req                                                                                                
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       
                      2003-07-03 10:32                                                                                                 
                      PM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       




OK, history is we received a request from Bijan Parsia to add daml:item to
OWL.  I passed his mail to the group [1] - he explained that DAML-S finds
daml:item important because they need to be able to build "typed lists".
 Jeremy responded [2] to point out that if we added this it would be to
Full, not DL, since DL doesn't allow the use of lists.  Jeremy is correct,
but that doesn't answer the question - Bijan didn't ask to add it to DL, he
asked to add it to OWL (i.e. Full would address his issue).
 Today I said on the telecon that I thought this related to the issue of
lists, and was told it didn't - but all the previous email about this issue
has been in the context of lists, and we have it indexed under issue 5.5
which is the issue of lists.
 So I would like to ask if anyone would actually oppose the addition of
owl:item to Owl Full.  Otherwise I will (in separate email) propose we open
issue 5.5, add to the closing text the inclusion of owl:item in Owl Full,
and then reclose the issue.
  -JH


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0290.html
[2]

--

Professor James Hendler                           hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies         301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.      301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742      *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 16:51:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT