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

Re: AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:56:26 -0800
Message-ID: <45E48CEA.5080309@topquadrant.com>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org

Right, Michael - people could theoretically interpret it this way.  I 
see your point.  We'll need to get more experience with how users react. 
  The suggestion below was based on a light-weight extension of the 
Manchester Syntax (where 'or' and 'and' are used).  If it turns out to 
be unpopular, we always have the fallback notation to enter them in 
rdf:List notation such as [A, B, C] in an owl11:disjointUnionOf widget. 
  I guess this is ok because people typically wouldn't use 
owl11:disjointUnionOf as part of a longer class expression, but likely 
only stand-alone as a direct statement about the named class.

Holger


Michael Schneider wrote:
> 
> Holger Knublauch wrote on Mon, 26 Feb 2007:
> 
>> The goal should be to have some mechanism that allows users to enter 
>> and display a disjoint union, e.g. in
>>
>>    A = B xor C xor D
>>
>> assuming xor represents disjoint union.
> 
> Hi, Holger!
> 
> Just a side note (a little offtopic): I believe that the above is not 
> the best way to describe a disjoint union. I would read the expression 
> "B xor C xor D" to only mean
> 
>   "B disjointWith C" and "C disjointWith D",
> 
> but I do not see from it what's the relationship between B and D. For 
> instance, "B equivalentClass D" would be consistent with the above 
> conjunction, so "B disjointWith D" cannot be inferred from it. Better 
> would be perhaps something like "xor(B,C,D)".
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:56:49 GMT

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