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: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:15:13 +0000
Message-Id: <7266BCBB-E831-4A63-97E4-267FBE50128D@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "'Uli Sattler'" <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

The proposal was, I think, to use the same syntactic form as for  
DifferentIndividuals/AllDifferent. Thus

DisjointClasses(C1  Cn)

would get an RDF mapping something like:

  _:x rdf:type owl:AllDisjoint .
_:x owl:disjointClasses T(SEQ iID1  iIDn) .

Ian


On 7 Nov 2007, at 19:48, Boris Motik wrote:

>
> 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 Sunday, 11 November 2007 12:15:27 GMT

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