- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 19 Jun 2003 09:41:51 -0500
- To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, wwmm <wwmm@seu.edu.cn>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Thanks for taking the time to comment on the spec; sorry for the delay in responding... > > > Envoyé : lundi 12 mai 2003 04:13 > > > Since there is an owl:AllDifferent, why is there not an > > > owl:AllDisjoint? In section 5.3. Disjoint Classes in the Guide, you can see an explanation of the topic... The A common requirement is to define a class as the union of a set of mutually disjoint subclasses. -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DisjointClasses it goes on to explain the details of exactly how to do it. > From: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> > To: "wwmm" <wwmm@seu.edu.cn>; <public-webont-comments@w3.org> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:56 AM > Subject: RE: Missing AllDisjoint? > > > > I've not seen any answer to this question, or maybe I missed it, but I > > agree that having AllDisjoint would be very useful, since partition is a > > frequent situation, very heavy to deal with using n^2 DisjointWith ... On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 14:56, Richard H. McCullough wrote: > A more useful implementation of this capability would be a > property superClassOf > with > domain Class > range List > where > subclasses in List are disjoint, distinct and exhaustive. A special language construct for this is the subject of issue 5.21 drop disjointUnionOf http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.21-drop-disjointUnionOf We decided, 24 Oct 2002, to drop the special construct because... The only thing going for owl:disjointUnionOf is that it uses fewer triples than the alternative. However almost all disjoint unions are small so the number of owl:disjointWith triples will not be that large. [...] Unless we have new information, information that the working group didn't have at the time we made our decision, we prefer not to re-open issues. The points you raise in your commenst are a good ones, but they don't seem to be new. Please let us know if you find the explanation in the Guide and the rationale for the decision not to adopt a special construct satisfactory. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 10:41:31 UTC