Re: AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

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:
> 
> 
> 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.

Ok!

BTW: I just found that a "DisjointClasses" construct is already part of 
the current OWL1.0 abstract syntax, see the table at

   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/direct.html#3.3

So it seems to me that this problem of a missing RDF mapping for an 
existing DisjointClasses-Feature has always been there in the past.

Cheers,
Michael