RE: OWL 2.0

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> ewallace@cme.nist.gov
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:26 AM
> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
> Subject: Re: OWL 2.0
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Would this be an OWL DL construct? 

Thanks,

> >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.

--
Pierluigi Miraglia * * * Sr Ontologist, Convera
+1-512-626-8366    * * * www.convera.com

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2005 19:51:34 UTC