W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > November 2000

Re: Proposed revision to daml-ont

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 21:40:13 -0600
Message-ID: <3A1C919D.B286A0C4@w3.org>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Ian Horrocks wrote:
> The DAML-OIL proposal can be found at:
>         http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML-OIL
> The proposal consists of the following files:
> daml-oil.rdf     - the revised language specification
> daml-oil-ex.rdf  - the revised example ontology
> changes.txt      - an explanation of the changes

First, I'd like to express support for several points
in the proposal:

 #2. Local cardinality restrictions have been added. 
 #4. Cardinality facets on slots have been deleted
	seems like The Right Thing to me

 #5. The distinction between restrictions and qualifications
	has been removed 

	Good idea. There's no reason for the difference.
	Sorry I created it in the first place.

 #6. "hasValue" and "hasClass" respectively are better choices. 

	Fine by me. (so long as we're talking about a new

 # 8. Local namespace equivalents for rdf and rdfs resources
	have not been used.

	This was sort of a pain to start with; the idea
	was to make it easy for folks to deal with just
	one DAML namespace, but from the DAML homework
	data, it doesn't seem that folks are bothered
	by multiple namespaces.

I'm ambivalent about these:

 #1, regarding Thing/Nothing: I don't feel strongly
	about one way or the other.
 #7. "default" was removed due to its lack of semantics. 

	I won't miss it.

This one seems broken:

 #3. The semantics of restrictions has been changed...

I'll explain why in a separate message.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2000 22:40:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:35 UTC