- From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:44:01 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Jim Hendler wrote: >Let me join Matthew in requesting this - note also that >"DisjointUnion" doesn't answer this need in all cases - often we want >to make things disjoint that either belong to many different classes >or that we have disjunction of classes without wanting to imply that >it is in some way complete. > -JH +1 on adding an AllDisjoint construct DisjointUnion supports a common pattern used in a number of modeling languages (including UML and EXPRESS), and no one from WebOnt would be surprised that I am in favor of including it in OWL 1.1. However, just as Jim points out, there are many cases where one wants to specify disjointness across a set of classes which don't make up a complete covering. Many new OWL users are surprised that classes aren't disjoint by default. Once they get over this, they start looking for constructs in the language like DisjointUnion and AllDisjoint. -Evan
Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 15:47:46 UTC