W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: oneOfDistinct, a proposal for 5.18

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:56:12 +0100
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDFADFDCC.2BD19C03-ONC1256C96.006BB5AA-C1256C96.006D8495@agfa.be>

OK, I see
if that is the case then that's OK with me as well
I tested it a bit and started from DanC's rules
and came to

owl:AllDistinct rdfs:subClassOf rdf:List.

{?L rdf:first ?x.
 ?L rdf:rest ?M.
 ?M owl:item ?y.
 ?L a owl:AllDistinct} => {?x owl:differentFrom ?y}.

{?L rdf:rest ?M.
 ?L a owl:AllDistinct} => {?M a owl:AllDistinct}.

I just don't see how rdf:parsetype="Collection"
could work in this case, but anyhow, e.g.

  <owl:AllDistinct rdf:nodeID='A0'>
    <rdf:first rdf:resource='premises001#a'/>
    <rdf:rest rdf:nodeID='A1'/>
  <owl:AllDistinct rdf:nodeID='A1'>
    <rdf:first rdf:resource='premises001#b'/>
    <rdf:rest rdf:nodeID='A2'/>
  <owl:AllDistinct rdf:nodeID='A2'>
    <rdf:first rdf:resource='premises001#c'/>
    <rdf:rest rdf:resource

should entail

    <rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#a">
        <owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="premises001#c"/>

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                    Frank van Harmelen                                                                                  
                    <Frank.van.Harmelen       To:     www-webont-wg@w3.org                                              
                    @cs.vu.nl>                cc:                                                                       
                    Sent by:                  Subject:     Re: oneOfDistinct, a proposal for 5.18                       
                    2002-12-20 11:11 PM                                                                                 
                    Please respond to                                                                                   
                    Frank van Harmelen                                                                                  

Jim Hendler wrote:

> If the WG indicates that they agree with Peter and/or prefer this
> I will be willing to revisit our decision.  If not, then we can go to LC
> without the semantics document, and resolve this and release that
> in LC form as soon thereafter as we can

If you're looking for support, than count me in as follows:
- I support Peter's objection (that last night's resolution lets
content" creep into descriptions)
- even if the semantics document could be fixed, it would still be
unattractive (Peter Crowther's points on this were well made)
- going to LC without the semantics document would be unacceptable in my

My first preference is Peter's proposal
and I would rather not have unique-names construction at all,
rather than going to LC without a semantics document.

Received on Saturday, 21 December 2002 14:56:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC