- 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>
> > - 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 UTC