- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:27:02 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> > > > - my pet hate rule for DisjointClasses which can be split > > > > e.g. > > > > DisjointClasses(unionOf(<a>,<b>),<c>,<d>,unionOf(<e>,<f>)) > > > > creates six owl:disjointWith triples between four nodes, two of > > > which are > > > > blank. > > > > If the five triples involving the blank nodes are all in one > > > file, with the > > > > sixth triple in a second file, then you have a point. > > > > > > I don't see a problem here, as this would then correspond to > a five-way > > > disjoint in one file and five disjoints in the other file. > > > > No, because the blank nodes cannot be shared between files. > > I don't think that this would be required. Replicating the (unnamed) > description in both files would do the trick. > > Semantically yes, syntactically no. I think that points to a way forward with these rules DisjointClasses(d1,...,dn) is equivalent to n(n-1)/2 statements DisjointClasses(di,dj) and the pair statements are easier to deal with syntactically. To me the remaining problem is to how to do so without necessitating an explosion of repetition that might be necessary. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 08:27:22 UTC