Re: questions about Process.owl

> [David Martin]
>
> One issue - is Output going to remain a subclass of Parameter, as well
> as a subclass of Link? If so, I *think* everything works out OK (but
> haven't thought long and hard). If not, the owlsParameter in
> Grounding.owl gets broken, and probably other things as well.
>

Ah. I overlooked that. But with Owl's supple class system, this
shouldn't be a problem. Thanks.

By the way, here's another issue: We have some occurrences of
rdf:parseType="Collection" that are no doubt illegitimate. (In the
Technical Overview, in unvalidatable example fragments, not in
Process.owl.) Since our goal has been to claw whatever scraps of
readability we can out of the godawful syntax we have to contend with,
I propose to leave them in, and I'm even planning to stick a couple of
new ones in. I hope no one minds.

                                             -- Drew

--
[To unsubscribe to this list send an email to "majdart@bbn.com"
with the following text in the BODY of the message "unsubscribe daml-process"]