W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

RE: OWL, XML-RDF and Imports

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:54:14 +0100
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDCECECBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


> > - rules which have a uriref as the main node.
> >   These can be split in both the concrete and abstract syntaxes, and the
> > tools you are talking about need to cope with this scenario.
>
> I don't see how they can be split in the abstract syntax.
> Perhaps you mean
> that it is possible to have two constructs in the abstract syntax that
> taken together have the same meaning as a single construct.

Yes, precisely.

>
> > - my pet hate rule for DisjointClasses which can be split
> > e.g.
> > DisjointClasses(unionOf(<a>,<b>),<c>,<d>,unionOf(<e>,<f>))
> > creates six owl:disjointWith triples between four nodes, two of
> which are
> > blank.
> > If the five triples involving the blank nodes are all in one
> file, with the
> > sixth triple in a second file, then you have a point.
>
> I don't see a problem here, as this would then correspond to a five-way
> disjoint in one file and five disjoints in the other file.

No, because the blank nodes cannot be shared between files.


Jeremy
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 07:54:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:57 GMT