RE: DAML+OIL: Questions & Improvements.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> On January 30, Dan Brickley writes:
> >
> > hi Ian,
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> >
> > > On January 29, Dan Brickley writes:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > I agree. As an editor I can't change this without RDF working group sayso.
> > We don't currently have an RDF working group, but I expect that situation
> > to change shortly. Watch this space...
> >
> > >
>
> Dan,
>
> My arguments about the removal of the subClassOf cycles restriction
> were not intended be taken seriously (well, not completely
> seriously). Sorry for any confusion.

No worries :) It _is_ a technical discussion worth having though. If we
don't allow cycles, can we find other ways to represent all that you want
to represent? Does RDFS successfully antipate these etc etc...

dan

Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 07:17:27 UTC