- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:25:12 -0500 (EST)
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- cc: "King . Dany" <DKing@drc.com>, "'www-rdf-logic'" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Ian Horrocks wrote: > > Syntactically however, it is... mostly (discrepancies: 1. RDF is requires > > acyclic subclass relations, DAML+OIL allows cyclic subclass relations; 2. > > DAML+OIL requires one syntax for cardinality to avoid exposed content, thus > > other equivalent and legal RDF syntaxes are illegal for DAML+OIL > > cardinality; 3. RDF allows only one range restriction per property, DAML+OIL > > allows multiple; 4. the "daml:collection" doesn't exist in RDF). > > 1 and 3 are likely to change in RDFS. Ahem! Pointer please to evidence for claim (1). Or a PaperTrail (http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/PaperTrail). Regarding (3), my inclination is to agree (and also fix rdfs:domain). The important thing with domain/range is to define what they mean, not how many times one can write down statements using them. The RDFS prose gets this wrong imho. Dan
Received on Monday, 29 January 2001 18:25:16 UTC