- From: Steven Gollery <sgollery@cadrc.calpoly.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:03:11 -0800
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Ian, Are you saying that the use of List is restricted to defining DAML itself? Or is it legal for an ontology to define a property whose range is daml:List? (I understand now that the items in a List are unordered, I just want to find out whether I can use List in my own definitions or not.) Steven Ian Horrocks wrote: > On February 11, Steven Gollery writes: > > > > > > Ian, > > > > > > It seems to me that the concept of "order" is fundamental in describing > > > elements of many ontologies. Why was the decision made not to include this in > > > DAML? > > > > > > Steven Gollery > > > > > > > Obviously, this is an overstatement. It is perfectly possible to define the equivalent of a > > linked list, as DAML-S does in its "nextProcessComponent" property, which provides a notion > > of "order". What I was really wondering here is: why was the decision made that a daml:list > > would be unordered? > > daml:list is part of the syntax of the language and is used to > represent sets of classes, e.g., in a conjunction. As you know, sets > are not ordered. > > Ian >
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 12:33:50 UTC