W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: ISSUE-2 (allDisjoint-RDF): No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:19:23 +0000
Message-ID: <473844CB.7060004@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Summary: argue against new RDF/XML constructs for equivalent-classes, 
equivalent-properties or equal-individuals, onb basis that all of these 
have O(n) constructs already.

On Wed

Boris wrote:
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.

The WebOnt rule for OWL 1.0 made sense to me:

For an n-ary construct in the abstract syntax, it must be possible to 
have an O(n) construct with the same meaning.

For the disjoint classes we were hence suggesting that the ontology 
writer should use the distinguished property approach.

This is documented in
linking to
and linking to
(which, in the Manifest file, is credited to Horrocks)

At the telecon we were told that there had proved to be operational 
difficulties with this, hence a directed O(n) construct should be 
supplied for RDF/XML.

For the positive constructs (equivalent class, same individual ...) 
there are trivial O(n) RDF/XML constructs, so that we don't need to, 
(and shouldn't?) provide alternative constructs.

i.e. to work through Boris's list:
equivalences on classes,
equivalences on properties
sameAs on individuals
     trivially O(n)
disjointness on properties
     new, should be considered
    on individuals ??? what's this.

Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 12:19:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC