Re: daml:item - still confused from Jeremy Carroll on 2003-07-04 (www-webont-wg@w3.org from July 2003)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:23:21 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200307041523.21906.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

I am currently fairly negative about daml:item.

Reasons:

1) it will cause confusion because it suggests that rdf:LIst is suitable in 
ontologies, whereas with our design it isn't.
  (i.e. I don't like a term that can only be used in full)

2) No rationale is offered to include it in an ontology language. It is just a 
useful short cut; there are lots of potential useful shortcuts, and we have 
no method for choosing which to bless and which not to bless.


Moreover, the commentator says that for his use case there are alternative 
formulations. (If we tried to remove cumbersomeness from OWL it would take 
another couple of years and we would end up with backwards Es and upside down 
As - and no XML or RDF)

Jeremy

Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 09:23:45 UTC