daml:item - still confused

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 
  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.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0290.html

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