- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:05:46 -0600
- To: "Dickinson, Ian J" <Ian_J_Dickinson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
"Dickinson, Ian J" wrote:
>
> 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.
Yes, Disjoint seems like much more trouble than it's worth; it doesn't
add expressive capability, after all.
> Btw, is there any activity underway to formulate a DTD or XML schema for
> DAML?
Not so much underway as latent, but please see:
RDF Syntax: An XML Schema Approach
in progress Aug 2000
http://www.w3.org/2000/07/DAML-0-5-syntax
Feel free to fill in the details the way you did with your XSLT
implementation of daml:collection ;-)
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 15 January 2001 09:06:53 UTC