- From: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 22:59:43 -0700
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: "Dickinson, Ian J" <Ian_J_Dickinson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > > and indeed, DAML defaults the > > type to daml:Thing. So, ordinarily, we can talk about *the* type of an > > object, > > No, we can't. We can ask for the *set* of types which something has > according to > a given set of infromation (eg a document). Related point: If we are, as TBL suggests (and with which I agree), going to be able to ask a DAML+OIL query with respect to a given set of information (e.g., a document), then why are we not able (to my knowledge) to express constraints in DAML+OIL WITH RESPECT TO A GIVEN SET OF INFORMATION? Why can't we say, for instance, property P has cardinality 2 WITHIN a given namespace, or a given document, or a given set of information (however that may be specified)? Aren't we going to need that as an integral part of the language? Regards, - David Martin
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 02:23:31 UTC