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

Re: AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:44:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200702231544.KAA06630@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org


Jim Hendler wrote:

>Let me join Matthew in requesting this - note also that 
>"DisjointUnion" doesn't answer this need in all cases - often we want 
>to make things disjoint that either belong to many different classes 
>or that we have disjunction of classes without wanting to imply that 
>it is in some way complete.
>  -JH

+1  on adding an AllDisjoint construct
DisjointUnion supports a common pattern used in a number of modeling
languages (including UML and EXPRESS), and no one from WebOnt would be 
surprised that I am in favor of including it in OWL 1.1.  However, just 
as Jim points out, there are many cases where one wants to specify 
disjointness across a set of classes which don't make up a complete 
covering.  Many new OWL users are surprised that classes aren't disjoint by
default.  Once they get over this, they start looking for constructs in
the language like DisjointUnion and AllDisjoint.  

-Evan
Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 15:47:46 GMT

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