- From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:39:22 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. \"Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Dan, I'm unclear here. Explain the illegal syntax? I can explain AllDistinct once we figure out how to say it. Though its getting late to add a lot of text to the Guide. I still need to fix the datatype examples. - Mike -----Original Message----- From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 1:38 PM To: Peter F. "Patel-Schneider Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: oneOfDistinct, a proposal for 5.18 On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 09:20, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > There is an alternative, however, which I think is preferable in some ways. > > OWL could have something like > > <owl:AllDistinct rdf:parseType="Collection"> > <owl:Person rdf:about="#John"/> > <owl:Person rdf:about="#Susan"/> > </owl:AllDisjoint> I realized the other day that this doesn't actually parse. AllDistinct parses as a typedNode there, not a propertyElement. parseType goes on propertyElements. It seems Jos already made the point in his message of Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:56:12 +0100 | I just don't see how rdf:parsetype="Collection" | could work in this case I don't think that's a show-stopper, but I suggest the chair confirm that the guide editor can explain how to use AllDistinc before making a decision about AllDistinct. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 09:39:39 UTC