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

RE: OWL 2.0

From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 23:08:06 +0200
To: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050601210841.2A35F508296@smtp2.TU-Cottbus.De>

> >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.

Having to make an "allDifferent" statement, and even more so 
all the pairwise "disjointWith" statements for base classes, 
is really cumbersome, and contradicts good practices in 
computational logic (that have been established in UML/OCL, 
SQL and Prolog).

In a more natural approach these statements would hold by default.


Professor Gerd Wagner 
Email: G.Wagner@tu-cottbus.de
Tel: (+49 355) 69 2397
Institute of Informatics
Brandenburg University of Technology 
at Cottbus, Germany
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 02:18:14 UTC

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