W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Semantics of owl:unionOf vs subclass ...

From: Ruth Dhanaraj <ruthdhan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 15:19:39 -0700
Message-ID: <db7d68190907091519y2f8a1d35ge15058c09a9ba8a6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Thanks for the info! Practically speaking, there's little difference
between the two, correct? If you're not concerned with excluding non
members of A and B, either syntax should suffice.

Ruth

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Bijan Parsia<bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2009, at 19:31, Ruth Dhanaraj wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been trying to figure out how I would write a property and say
>> its domain can be of type A *or* B. The RDF primer says that
>> specifying multiple domains is an AND, so that's out.
>
> Correct.
>
>> As far as I can tell, the semantics go something like this:
>> A subclassof C
>> B subclassof C
>> = C is a superset of A u B
>>
>> C unionOf (A B)
>> = C is A u B
>>
>> (then I can say that my property has domain C)
>
> You don't need the first two axioms when the latter is an equivalence axiom.
>
>> Is this correct? What's the recommended way to specify this?
>
> You can do this without introducing a new term (C). I.e., (in no real
> syntax)
>
> p domain unionOf(A B)
>
> Some versions of the Protege 3 series would do that by default when you
> added multiple domains (or ranges).
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 22:20:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:57 GMT