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 14:27:02 +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: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDGECFCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


> > > > - 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.
>
>

Semantically yes, syntactically no.

I think that points to a way forward with these rules

DisjointClasses(d1,...,dn)

is equivalent to n(n-1)/2 statements

DisjointClasses(di,dj)

and the pair statements are easier to deal with syntactically.

To me the remaining problem is to how to do so without necessitating an
explosion of repetition that might be necessary.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 08:27:22 GMT

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