Re: AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

>> 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:


If you prefer, read the above as... "I could live with dropping 
DisjointUnion sugar assuming that OWL 1.1 includes a DisjointClasses
feature or equivalent."  One part of 'includes' is having it be part
of the syntax for the rdf/xml for 1.1.

-Evan