W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Representation of disjoint union in OWL/XML

From: Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:19:09 +0100
Message-Id: <45C81C62-FF5B-4079-A7E9-EC59C6E364CC@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org

The representation of disjoint union in the XML syntax is as follows:

<xsd:element name="DisjointUnion">
     <xsd:complexType>
       <xsd:sequence>
         <xsd:group ref="owl11xml:Annotation" minOccurs="0"  
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
         <xsd:group ref="owl11xml:Description" minOccurs="2"  
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
         <xsd:element name="UnionOf">
           <xsd:complexType>
             <xsd:sequence>
               <xsd:group ref="owl11xml:Description" minOccurs="2"  
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
             </xsd:sequence>
             <xsd:attributeGroup ref="xml:specialAttrs"/>
           </xsd:complexType>
         </xsd:element>
       </xsd:sequence>
       <xsd:attributeGroup ref="xml:specialAttrs"/>
     </xsd:complexType>
   </xsd:element>


Could we get rid of the UnionOf element and just have a minOccurs of  
three description elements?

e.g.

<owl11xml:DisjointUnion>
	<owl11xml:OWLClass owl11xml:name="#Person"/>
         <owl11xml:OWLClass owl11xml:name="#Male"/>
         <owl11xml:OWLClass owl11xml:name="#Female"/>
</owl11xml:DisjointUnion>

I think this would make parsing easier and it would be more  
consistent with how other axioms are represented e.g. subClassOf  
where the subclass and superclass aren't children of explicit  
subclass and superclass elements.

Cheers,

Matthew
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 17:19:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT