Re: Syntax Changes (AllDifferent etc.)

On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 09:38, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
> Raphael and I would like to propose the following changes to the
> concrete syntax. This is based on our implementation experience over
> the last couple of weeks.
> 
> 1) An AllDifferent construct is supplied which allows the
>    specification of multiple different individuals. Can we also have
>    AllDisjointClasses and possibly AllSame, AllEquivalentClasses and
>    AllEquivalentProperties. In a number of our example ontologies,
>    there are multiple disjoints. Being forced to represent these as
>    n(n-1) distinct binary disjoints is troublesome, and can result in
>    difficulty in round-tripping, particularly if a tool allows an
>    author to assert multiple simultaneous disjoints (as, for example,
>    is possible in OilEd.

I'm sorta neutral on this, though we have discussed and decided
a relevant issue, so I think this is a request to re-open it.

Mike, the issues list says it's open,

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.18-Unique-Names-Assumption-Support-in-OWL

but i'm pretty sure we resolved to
 -- introduce AllDifferent
 -- postpone the rest

yes...

"RESOLVED: to close the AllDifferent issue using an AllDifferent class
and a distinctMembers property (to be elaborated by the semantics
editors). Connolly, Carroll, Bechhofer, Dale, Volz, Horan abstaining."
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf5.html#AllDiffere

hmm... that's a bit sloppy; I think "the AllDifferent issue"
is 5.18, and it should be marked postponed, not closed.

The decision in manchester was, I think, an ammended form
of this proposal.

oneOfDistinct, a proposal for 5.18 - Unique names assumption
From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: Wed, Dec 11 2002
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0124.html

The chairs will please confirm.



> 2)

More on that separately...

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/