- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:35:46 +0200
- To: "Jim Hendler <hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
>At 7:04 PM +0200 5/14/03, Jos De_Roo wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>> Note, in OWL full I would do this by simplying using the allDifferent
>>> on the classes - maybe that is the solution to suggest to these folks
>>> for now, although could mean a lot of scientistific applications
>>> would not be using DL...
>>
>>does
>>
>>[ a owl:AllDifferent; owl:distinctMembers (:Mammalian :Reptilian ...)].
>>
>>mean that the extensions of :Mammalian :Reptilian ...
>>are different sets or that they are mutually disjoint?
>>
>>
>
>Good point - even that solution wouldn't be good enough -- however it
>is worth noting that the folks I talked to DIDN'T ask for
>DisjointUnion because the higher concepts are not necessarily the
>union of the disjoint sets -- so they really would be happy with some
>like
>
>[ a owl:AllDisjointClasses; owl:distinctMembers (:Mammalian :Reptilian
...)].
tested that here with
{: rdfs:fyi :rule7j1. ?L rdf:first ?X; rdf:rest ?M. ?M :item ?Y.
?A a owl:AllDisjoint; owl:distinctMembers ?L} => {?X owl:disjointWith ?Y}.
and that seems to work
I'm convinced Jim.
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
PS I have to send in my regrets (again) for tomorrows telecon
(will be at a restaurant to celebrate my daughter's 18'th birthday...)
I would like to propose Pat as my proxy when it comes to voting
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 13:35:58 UTC