- From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:25:47 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Denny Vrandecic wrote: > >4) I would love to be able to define syntactic sugar, like partitionOf (I think, >this is from Asuns Book on Ontology Engineering). ((A, B, C) partitionOf D) means >that every D is either an A or a B or a C, that every A, B or C is a D, and that A, >B and C are mutually disjunct. So you can say this already, but it needs a lot of >footwork. It would be nice to be able to define such shotcuts that lever upon the >semantics of existing constructors. > DAML+OIL has this and so did pre-standard versions of OWL. It was removed from OWL to simplify the language. The contruct was called: disjointUnionOf. If people want this feature, they should speak up. That way, should the issue be revisited there will be a record of interest in the feature. I was one of the few in webont who spoke in favor of keeping the construct. >5) That said, another form of syntactic sugar - beacause again you can use existing >OWL constructs to reach the same goal, but it is very strenuous to do so - would be >to define UNA locally. Like either to say "all individuals in this ontology are >mutually different" or "all individuals with this namespace are mutually different". >I think, due to XML constraints the first one would be the weapon of choice. I am not sure you will ever get anything but allDifferent to address this requirement. It doesn't quite do what you want, but it is close. -Evan
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2005 17:25:49 UTC