Re: basic decisions underlying DAML-ONT

At 1:19 PM -0400 10/12/00, Drew McDermott wrote:
>    [jim hendler]
>    Actually, we did want to include defined classes in this release, but

...

>ally both share the same DefinedClass)??
>
>I don't quite understand the danger here.  The fear seems to be that
>we might have a set of facts represented and a consequence of those
>facts which is not explicitly represented (or easily inferrable on
>demand).  Surely this is inevitable, regardless of whether the facts
>are scattered around the web or located in one place.
>
>                                              -- Drew

Drew-
  Sorry I wasn't clear -- the issue wasn't that this is something that 
should never happen, rather that there are some implications to both 
the language and the design of language tools that depended on how 
this stuff was done.  We just punted on holding up a language 
definition while we waited to get the details right.  There's also 
some deeper issues with respect to variables and grounding that are 
more general than this issue, but which a solution to this could 
constrain (essentially having to do with how things are reified in 
various places).  Again, decision was to temporarily postpone, as 
opposed to never deal with, this issue.
  -JH

Dr. James Hendler		jhendler@darpa.mil
Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO	703-696-2238 (phone)
3701 N. Fairfax Dr.		703-696-2201 (Fax)
Arlington, VA 22203		http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler

Received on Thursday, 12 October 2000 14:34:43 UTC