Re: Moving forward

Pat wrote:
>>I am confident that this will be a viable solution. Existing code
>>does this, in effect, and seems to work reliably, and there is a
>>clear strategy for providing a coherent semantics. I do not even
>>think that it will require significant changes to DAML+OIL; the only
>>extra requirement is that the daml:list triples be unasserted in RDF.

my first reply
>right, fully agreed

I have to correct that, we can let all our test cases
work when we assert all top level owl:List statements
For details see http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/#R29083
Premise/Consequent triples are of course not asserted

--
Jos

Received on Saturday, 23 March 2002 07:33:26 UTC