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: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:27:36 +0100
Message-ID: <45E1D518.9060906@gmx.de>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org, matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk

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.


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


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.

Received on Sunday, 25 February 2007 18:34:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC