Representation of disjoint union in OWL/XML

• From: Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>
• Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:19:09 +0100
• To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
• Message-Id: <45C81C62-FF5B-4079-A7E9-EC59C6E364CC@cs.man.ac.uk>

The representation of disjoint union in the XML syntax is as follows:

<xsd:element name="DisjointUnion">
     <xsd:complexType>
       <xsd:sequence>
         <xsd:group ref="owl11xml:Annotation" minOccurs="0"  
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
         <xsd:group ref="owl11xml:Description" minOccurs="2"  
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
         <xsd:element name="UnionOf">
           <xsd:complexType>
             <xsd:sequence>
               <xsd:group ref="owl11xml:Description" minOccurs="2"  
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
             </xsd:sequence>
             <xsd:attributeGroup ref="xml:specialAttrs"/>
           </xsd:complexType>
         </xsd:element>
       </xsd:sequence>
       <xsd:attributeGroup ref="xml:specialAttrs"/>
     </xsd:complexType>
   </xsd:element>


Could we get rid of the UnionOf element and just have a minOccurs of  
three description elements?

e.g.

<owl11xml:DisjointUnion>
	<owl11xml:OWLClass owl11xml:name="#Person"/>
         <owl11xml:OWLClass owl11xml:name="#Male"/>
         <owl11xml:OWLClass owl11xml:name="#Female"/>
</owl11xml:DisjointUnion>

I think this would make parsing easier and it would be more  
consistent with how other axioms are represented e.g. subClassOf  
where the subclass and superclass aren't children of explicit  
subclass and superclass elements.

Cheers,

Matthew

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 17:19:20 UTC