- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:19:23 +0000
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.21-drop-disjointUnionOf linking to http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DisjointClasses and linking to http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-test-20040210/byIssue#I5.21-002 (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 disjointFrom on individuals ??? what's this. ]] Jeremy
Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 12:19:50 UTC