- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:15:13 +0000
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Uli Sattler'" <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
The proposal was, I think, to use the same syntactic form as for DifferentIndividuals/AllDifferent. Thus DisjointClasses(C1 … Cn) would get an RDF mapping something like: _:x rdf:type owl:AllDisjoint . _:x owl:disjointClasses T(SEQ iID1 … iIDn) . Ian On 7 Nov 2007, at 19:48, Boris Motik wrote: > > 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 Sunday, 11 November 2007 12:15:27 UTC