- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:50:24 +0000
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Hi Holger, Thanks for pointing this out. In fact in the latest version of the OWL 1.1 Mapping to RDF Graphs [1] we already fixed the problem, and even distinguish between object and datatype properties by using owl:disjointObjectProperties and owl:disjointDataProperties for the two cases. In fact, we have tried to use unambiguous vocabulary for all the new constructs; no doubt you will let us know if we still overlooked something :-) Regards, Ian [1] http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/rdf_mapping.html On 15 Nov 2006, at 21:59, Holger Knublauch wrote: > > According to the OWL 1.1 RDF mapping, DisjointObjectProperties are > mapped into the OWL 1.0 property owl:disjointWith for properties: > > <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#likes"> > <owl:disjointWith> > <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#dislikes"/> > </owl:disjointWith> > </owl:ObjectProperty> > > Is it safe to reuse the same property like for classes here? What > happens if you send this to an OWL 1.0 reasoner: from the domain of > owl:disjointWith this would probably infer that "likes" must be a > class... In order to improve backward compatibility, wouldn't it make > sense to introduce a new property here, such as owl:disjointProperty, > similar to owl:equivalentProperty? > > Holger >
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 10:50:43 UTC