RE: ACTION-93 / ISSUE-63: Initiated work on OWL-1.1-Full semantics

[slightly related to ISSUE-117]

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote on Tuesday, March 25, 2008:

>2/ I do not believe that a comprehension principle is needed for
>   owl11:disjointUnionOf (so long as there is a comprehension principle
>   for lists of descriptions) and the syntax requires 
>   that the disjointUnion be a named class.

After reconsidering this special case, I have now dropped the comprehension
principle for owl2:disjointUnionOf. It is technically redundant, as long as
we have:

  * a comprehension principle for owl:unionOf
  * ONLY-IF semantics for owl:unionOf
  * IF-AND-ONLY-IF semantics for owl2:disjointUnionOf

Cheers,
Michael