- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 19:48:01 -0000
- To: "'Uli Sattler'" <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, Yes, this is it, and not just for disjointness, but for other similar n-ary constructs as well. Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Uli Sattler > Sent: 07 November 2007 19:27 > To: Boris Motik > Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: ISSUE-2 (allDisjoint-RDF): No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping > > > > On 7 Nov 2007, at 18:24, Boris Motik wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > There are other n-ary constructs in the functional spec that are > > mapped into binary constructs in the RDF: equivalences on classes, > > disjointness and equivalences on properties, and sameAs and > > disjointFrom on individuals. > > > > It might make sense to broaden the discussion to these features as > > well. > > > > Thus, you could view the problem as "whether the RDF mapping should > > always preserve the arity of the construct in the functional > > spec". > > so, i understand that we are asking whether to translate, for example > > disjointClasses(A B C) into > > - (A disjoint B), (B disjoint C), (A disjoint C), thereby not > preserving arity or > > - (A disjointWithList (B disjointWithList C)) or such like.... > > Is this it? > > Cheers, Uli > > > > > Regards, > > > > Boris > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 19:48:50 UTC