Re: AllDisjoint in RDF mapping from ewallace@cme.nist.gov on 2007-02-23 (public-owl-dev@w3.org from January to March 2007)

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:35:23 -0500 (EST)
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <200702232335.SAA07287@clue.mel.nist.gov>

>> On the other hand, if we had AllDisjoint, I might accept dropping DisjointUnion
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Just to avoid a misunderstanding (maybe it's on my own side): The 
>current proposal of OWL1.1 actually /provides/ such a construct in its 
>abstract syntax, called "DisjointClasses". According to [1], Section 6.1:


If you prefer, read the above as... "I could live with dropping 
DisjointUnion sugar assuming that OWL 1.1 includes a DisjointClasses
feature or equivalent."  One part of 'includes' is having it be part
of the syntax for the rdf/xml for 1.1.

-Evan

Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 23:39:09 UTC