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

Re: overview document on Wiki

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:22:21 -0400
Message-Id: <FE6B77CF-0C5D-4AD4-AEC8-37025BC7D9F0@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

Peter - sorry, I should have been clearer - I forget that talking  
informally gets one in trouble in this group.
I am advocating that we need AllDisjoint to be added.


On Oct 30, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
>>> From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
>>> Date: October 30, 2007 12:47:30 PM EDT
>>> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
>>> Subject: Re: overview document on Wiki (was Re: less technical
>>> documents)
>>>
>>> Just a point - I couldn't figure out where in Wiki to make such a
>>> point (and whether it is right to edit documents in the Wiki that
>>> one is not the editor of)  - in this document it says DisjointUnion
>>> is syntactic sugar for DisjointClasses and EquivalentClasses of the
>>> Union.  Which makes sense, except that we have Issue 2, which is
>>> that DisjointClasses (a/k/a AllDisjoint) doesn't seem to have an
>>> RDF realization - so we should either note or link or solve...
>>>  -JH
>
> The issue, ISSUE-2, appears to be asking for a shorthand for many
> disjointWith's, i.e., yet another vocabularly term, probably
> owl:AllDisjoint.
>
>
> However, DisjointClassies, *does* have an RDF realization, which can
> easily be found using a simple search in
> http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/rdf_mapping.html
>
> 	DisjointClasses(c1 ... cn)	
> 		T(ci) owl:disjointWith T(cj)   1 <= i, j <= n, i/= j
>
> peter
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 19:22:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT