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 14:13:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200702231913.OAA06907@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org


Jim Hendler wrote:
>actually, I do have a little problem with disjointUnion - the problem 
>is that this would be the first OWL feature (I think) that combines 
>two definitions at the same time -- so if I say
>
>Class A == DisjointUnion (B,C,D)     (with the obvious meaning, no 
>syntax implied)
>
>then I am asserting both the definition of Class A AND the fact that 
>B,C, and D are disjoint.  From a human point of view, I wonder if it 
>isn't better to avoid the syntactic sugar and have this remain as two 
>assertions
>
>Class A= Union(B,C,D)
>AllDisjoint(B,C,D)
>
>just seems to me that the clarity in the modeling would be clearer

I don't think there is anything unclear about DisjointUnion, and I don't
personally care if it is breaking new ground by making two types of 
assertions in one construct.  It is syntactic sugar, after all.  On the
other hand, if we had AllDisjoint, I might accept dropping DisjointUnion  
--as long as this doesn't embolden the folks, who mistakenly think that 
language understandability is directly proportional to language vocabulary
size, to try and cut out OWL 1.1 language features that they don't appreciate
or understand.

-Evan
Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 19:17:35 GMT

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