W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2001

RE: Bugs in 2000/12 daml+oil reference on DAML collections

From: Dickinson, Ian J <Ian_J_Dickinson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:13:28 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F15C454@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Ian Horrocks'" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "'www-rdf-logic@w3.org'" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

From: Ian Horrocks [mailto:horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk]
> I would suggest that a better way to do it would be:

> <daml:Disjoint>
>   <daml:first rdf:resource="#Car"/>
>   <daml:rest rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
>     <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
>     <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/>
>   </daml:rest>
> </daml:Disjoint>

Thanks for your comments. I take your point about the Disjoint list itself
not having a meaning, and hence not being equivalentTo another class. 

Hmm. We now have three suggestions: one from Dan C, one from Peter P-S, and
one from Ian H.  There may be others too. What's the process for coming to a
consensus on this?


Ian J. Dickinson    HP Labs, Bristol, UK    mailto:Ian_Dickinson@hp.com
Received on Friday, 12 January 2001 13:13:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:36 UTC