W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

RE: ISSUE-2 (allDisjoint-RDF): No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 19:48:01 -0000
To: "'Uli Sattler'" <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000701c82177$1abeb5f0$2711a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

Yes, this is it, and not just for disjointness, but for other similar n-ary constructs as well.

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Uli Sattler
> Sent: 07 November 2007 19:27
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-2 (allDisjoint-RDF): No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 Nov 2007, at 18:24, Boris Motik wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > There are other n-ary constructs in the functional spec that are
> > mapped into binary constructs in the RDF: equivalences on classes,
> > disjointness and equivalences on properties, and sameAs and
> > disjointFrom on individuals.
> >
> > It might make sense to broaden the discussion to these features as
> > well.
> >
> > Thus, you could view the problem as "whether the RDF mapping should
> > always preserve the arity of the construct in the functional
> > spec".
> 
> so, i understand that we are asking whether to translate, for example
> 
> disjointClasses(A B C) into
> 
> - (A disjoint B), (B disjoint C), (A disjoint C), thereby not
> preserving arity or
> 
> - (A disjointWithList (B disjointWithList C)) or such like....
> 
> Is this it?
> 
> Cheers, Uli
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 	Boris
> >
> >
> 
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 19:48:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT