- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:32:42 -0400
- To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <p05200f2ebb2a41ff9cdb@[10.0.1.2]>
OK, history is we received a request from Bijan Parsia to add daml:item to OWL. I passed his mail to the group [1] - he explained that DAML-S finds daml:item important because they need to be able to build "typed lists". Jeremy responded [2] to point out that if we added this it would be to Full, not DL, since DL doesn't allow the use of lists. Jeremy is correct, but that doesn't answer the question - Bijan didn't ask to add it to DL, he asked to add it to OWL (i.e. Full would address his issue). Today I said on the telecon that I thought this related to the issue of lists, and was told it didn't - but all the previous email about this issue has been in the context of lists, and we have it indexed under issue 5.5 which is the issue of lists. So I would like to ask if anyone would actually oppose the addition of owl:item to Owl Full. Otherwise I will (in separate email) propose we open issue 5.5, add to the closing text the inclusion of owl:item in Owl Full, and then reclose the issue. -JH [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0290.html [2] -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 *** 240-277-3388 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 16:32:49 UTC