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.

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2005 17:25:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:13 UTC