W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: OWL 2.0

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:25:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200505311725.NAA09056@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org


Denny Vrandecic wrote:

>
>4) I would love to be able to define syntactic sugar, like partitionOf (I think, 
>this is from Asuns Book on Ontology Engineering). ((A, B, C) partitionOf D) means 
>that every D is either an A or a B or a C, that every A, B or C is a D, and that A, 
>B and C are mutually disjunct. So you can say this already, but it needs a lot of 
>footwork. It would be nice to be able to define such shotcuts that lever upon the  
>semantics of existing constructors.
>

DAML+OIL has this and so did pre-standard versions of OWL.  It was removed from
OWL to simplify the language.  The contruct was called: disjointUnionOf.  If people
want this feature, they should speak up.  That way, should the issue be revisited
there will be a record of interest in the feature.  I was one of the few in webont
who spoke in favor of keeping the construct.

>5) That said, another form of syntactic sugar - beacause again you can use existing 
>OWL constructs to reach the same goal, but it is very strenuous to do so - would be 
>to define UNA locally. Like either to say "all individuals in this ontology are 
>mutually different" or "all individuals with this namespace are mutually different". 
>I think, due to XML constraints the first one would be the weapon of choice.

I am not sure you will ever get anything but allDifferent to address this requirement.
It doesn't quite do what you want, but it is close.

-Evan
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2005 17:25:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:53 GMT