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

Re: owl:All(something) ??

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:44:19 +0200
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFEF75E52D.074E2D36-ONC1256D26.0060C5A2-C1256D26.00617350@agfa.be>


Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote
>From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
>Subject: Re: owl:All(something) ??
>Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:04:15 +0200
>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> > 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 ...)].
>
>Do you, perhaps mean instead
>
> _:x rdf:type owl:AllDifferent .
> _:x owl:distinctMembers _:l1 .
> _:l1 rdf:first :Mammalian .
> _:l1 rdf:rest _:l2 .
> _:l1 rdf:first :Reptilian .
> _:l1 rdf:rest ...

Yes, except for the small correction

 _:l2 rdf:first :Reptilian .
 _:l2 rdf:rest ...


>> mean that the extensions of :Mammalian :Reptilian ...
>> are different sets or that they are mutually disjoint?
>
>Neither.  They could have the same extension, but still be different
>individuals.

Exactly, that's why I guess Jim proposed owl:AllDisjointClasses
(or someone else before owl:AllDisjoint).


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 13:44:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT