- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:56:12 +0100
- To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
OK, I see
if that is the case then that's OK with me as well
I tested it a bit and started from DanC's rules
and came to
owl:AllDistinct rdfs:subClassOf rdf:List.
{?L rdf:first ?x.
?L rdf:rest ?M.
?M owl:item ?y.
?L a owl:AllDistinct} => {?x owl:differentFrom ?y}.
{?L rdf:rest ?M.
?L a owl:AllDistinct} => {?M a owl:AllDistinct}.
I just don't see how rdf:parsetype="Collection"
could work in this case, but anyhow, e.g.
<owl:AllDistinct rdf:nodeID='A0'>
<rdf:first rdf:resource='premises001#a'/>
<rdf:rest rdf:nodeID='A1'/>
</owl:AllDistinct>
<owl:AllDistinct rdf:nodeID='A1'>
<rdf:first rdf:resource='premises001#b'/>
<rdf:rest rdf:nodeID='A2'/>
</owl:AllDistinct>
<owl:AllDistinct rdf:nodeID='A2'>
<rdf:first rdf:resource='premises001#c'/>
<rdf:rest rdf:resource
='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#nil'/>
</owl:AllDistinct>
should entail
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#a">
<owl:differentFrom rdf:resource="premises001#c"/>
</rdf:Description>
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Frank van Harmelen
<Frank.van.Harmelen To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
@cs.vu.nl> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: oneOfDistinct, a proposal for 5.18
www-webont-wg-reque
st@w3.org
2002-12-20 11:11 PM
Please respond to
Frank van Harmelen
Jim Hendler wrote:
> If the WG indicates that they agree with Peter and/or prefer this
decision,
> I will be willing to revisit our decision. If not, then we can go to LC
> without the semantics document, and resolve this and release that
document
> in LC form as soon thereafter as we can
If you're looking for support, than count me in as follows:
- I support Peter's objection (that last night's resolution lets
"assertional
content" creep into descriptions)
- even if the semantics document could be fixed, it would still be
unattractive (Peter Crowther's points on this were well made)
- going to LC without the semantics document would be unacceptable in my
opinion.
My first preference is Peter's proposal
and I would rather not have unique-names construction at all,
rather than going to LC without a semantics document.
Frank.
----
Received on Saturday, 21 December 2002 14:56:50 UTC