- From: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:59:39 +0100
- 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 UTC