- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 23:08:06 +0200
- To: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
> >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. Having to make an "allDifferent" statement, and even more so all the pairwise "disjointWith" statements for base classes, is really cumbersome, and contradicts good practices in computational logic (that have been established in UML/OCL, SQL and Prolog). In a more natural approach these statements would hold by default. -Gerd -------------------------------------------- Professor Gerd Wagner http://www.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/~gwagner Email: G.Wagner@tu-cottbus.de Tel: (+49 355) 69 2397 Institute of Informatics Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus, Germany
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 02:18:14 UTC