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: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:06:47 -0500
Message-Id: <237F77CB-2E96-4AD9-ABDF-3FDAE28E2ACB@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'Uli Sattler'" <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

that works for me

On Nov 11, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:

>
> 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 14:07:18 GMT

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