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

Re: AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

From: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:59:39 +0100
Message-ID: <45DF55BB.20605@gmx.de>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org, matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk

Hi Evan!

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote on Fri, 23 Feb 2007

> On the other hand, if we had AllDisjoint, I might accept dropping DisjointUnion
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just to avoid a misunderstanding (maybe it's on my own side): The 
current proposal of OWL1.1 actually /provides/ such a construct in its 
abstract syntax, called "DisjointClasses". According to [1], Section 6.1:

   "The disjointClasses axiom takes a set of classes and states
   that all classes from the set are pair-wise disjoint."

   [...]

   disjointClasses :=
     'DisjointClasses' '('
       { annotation } description description { description }
     ')'

AFAICS, in his original post, Matthew Horridge just found out that there 
is no matching construct in the /RDF mapping/:

   Matthew Horridge on Tue, 20 Feb 2007:

   "As far as I can tell, in the current RDF mapping, disjoint
   classes must be mapped in a pairwise fashion using
   disjointWith statements.
   [...]
   would it be possible to add an AllDisjoint mapping to the spec
   (rather like AllDifferent for individuals)?"

Cheers,
Michael

[1] http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/owl_specification.html#6
Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 21:00:05 GMT

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