Re: owl:All(something) ??

>At 7:04 PM +0200 5/14/03, Jos De_Roo wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>  Note, in OWL full I would do this by simplying using the allDifferent
>>>  on the classes - maybe that is the solution to suggest to these folks
>>>  for now, although could mean a lot of scientistific applications
>>>  would not be using DL...
>>
>>does
>>
>>[ a owl:AllDifferent; owl:distinctMembers (:Mammalian :Reptilian ...)].
>>
>>mean that the extensions of :Mammalian :Reptilian ...
>>are different sets or that they are mutually disjoint?
>>
>>
>
>Good point - even that solution wouldn't be good enough -- however it
>is worth noting that the folks I talked to  DIDN'T ask for
>DisjointUnion because the higher concepts are not necessarily the
>union of the disjoint sets -- so they really would be happy with some
>like
>
>[ a owl:AllDisjointClasses; owl:distinctMembers (:Mammalian :Reptilian
...)].

tested that here with
{: rdfs:fyi :rule7j1. ?L rdf:first ?X; rdf:rest ?M. ?M :item ?Y.
 ?A a owl:AllDisjoint; owl:distinctMembers ?L} => {?X owl:disjointWith ?Y}.
and that seems to work
I'm convinced Jim.


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

PS I have to send in my regrets (again) for tomorrows telecon
   (will be at a restaurant to celebrate my daughter's 18'th birthday...)

   I would like to propose Pat as my proxy when it comes to voting