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

Re: OWL, XML-RDF and Imports

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:07:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030217.080707.05147223.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: seanb@cs.man.ac.uk, www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RE: OWL, XML-RDF and Imports
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:54:14 +0100

> 
> > > - 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.

I don't think that this would be required.  Replicating the (unnamed)
description in both files would do the trick.


> Jeremy

peter
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 08:08:39 GMT

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