- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:56:26 -0800
- 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 UTC