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

Re: Revisiting AllDisjoint (was Proposed (parital) response to Ken Laskey and questions for WG)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 15 Jul 2003 12:31:20 -0500
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1058290279.2426.242.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 16:32, Jim Hendler wrote:
> I would like to take a moment to see what people think about having to
> reopen this issue (or possibly move forward over an objection):
> 
> In a conversation (non electronic) with Ken Laskey, who has again
> raised the issue of having an owl:allDisjoint construct (mirroring the
> allDifferent construct), I pointed him to Dan Connolly's [1] earlier
> response to this issue.  Ken indicated that he was not likely to
> accept this answer, and in conversation he brought up many use cases
> where this would be needed.  Basically, he disputes our contention
> that since this occurs in "class space" it is likely to be just a
> small number -- as he points out,  we already have a number of
> ontologies in OWL that are quite large (the NCI ontology and the GALEN
> ontology, are two examples).

Hmm... that's not information I/we had in Oct 2002 when we made
this decision. It makes me think about the issue differently.

As far as I can see, the changes would be non-trivial, but
not very big.

I don't think I have bandwidth to champion the cause, but
if a volunteer to own the issue (i.e. lead the discussion,
perhaps come up with a few examples for the guide and/or
test suite, review changes to S&AS, that sort of thing)
emerges, I'd like to see us quickly reconsider this.


> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jun/0038.html

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:31:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT