- From: Dickinson, Ian J <Ian_J_Dickinson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:47:29 -0000
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Ian Horrocks [mailto:horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk] wrote: > Another more radical solution that has just occurred to me is > to simply scrap Disjoint. It is completely redundant because > we can just say: > > <rdfs:Class> > <daml:disjointUnionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Car"/> > <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Person"/> > <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/> > </daml:disjointUnionOf> > </rdfs:Class> This seems to me like a good suggestion, if Disjoint is the only instance that we otherwise wish to add a daml:collection attribute to. It would make it much easier to formulate syntactic restrictions for a well-formed DAML document. Btw, is there any activity underway to formulate a DTD or XML schema for DAML? Cheers, Ian _______________________________________________________________________ Ian J. Dickinson HP Labs, Bristol, UK mailto:Ian_Dickinson@hp.com
Received on Monday, 15 January 2001 06:47:35 UTC