Re: Covering Axiom Question

Thanks Bernard.If I understand correctly, this does not alter the semantics
of the covering axiom that can be implemented today using disjoint classes
which in union comprise the equivalent class or super class of the covered
class.
What I don't understand is why an instance of the covered class does not
create an inconsistency.
Is this an artifact of the tools, in my case pellet and Protege 4, or is an
instance of a covered class which is not also an instance of a covering
class consistent?
TIA,
Kevin

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Bernard Vatant
<bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>wrote:

> Kevin
>
> I would say DisjointUnion in OWL 2 is exactly what you are looking for
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-new-features-20090922/#F1:_DisjointUnion
>
> Best
>
> Bernard
>
> 2009/9/30 Kevin Tyson <kevin.tyson@gmail.com>
>
> Greetings,Is it possible to create a covering axiom such that any
>> instances of the covered class must be a direct instance of one of the
>> covering classes?Such a structure would be analogous to the "abstract
>> super class" pattern popular in some O-O programming and modeling languages.
>> TIA,
>> Kevin
>>
>> --
>> Kevin P. Tyson
>> Kevin.Tyson@gmail.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Vocabulary & Data Engineering
> Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
> Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Mondeca
> 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
> Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
> Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> ----------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
Kevin P. Tyson
Kevin.Tyson@gmail.com