- From: Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:45:50 +0000
- To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
>
> 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:
>
> "The disjointClasses axiom takes a set of classes and states
> that all classes from the set are pair-wise disjoint."
>
> [...]
>
> disjointClasses :=
> 'DisjointClasses' '('
> { annotation } description description { description }
> ')'
>
> AFAICS, in his original post, Matthew Horridge just found out that
> there is no matching construct in the /RDF mapping/:
Yes, this is exactly the problem. In RDF there is no way to specify
that a set of classes are pairwise disjoint.
Cheers,
Matthew
Received on Saturday, 24 February 2007 09:46:00 UTC