- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:44:19 +0200
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote >From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com> >Subject: Re: owl:All(something) ?? >Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:04:15 +0200 > >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> > 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 ...)]. > >Do you, perhaps mean instead > > _:x rdf:type owl:AllDifferent . > _:x owl:distinctMembers _:l1 . > _:l1 rdf:first :Mammalian . > _:l1 rdf:rest _:l2 . > _:l1 rdf:first :Reptilian . > _:l1 rdf:rest ... Yes, except for the small correction _:l2 rdf:first :Reptilian . _:l2 rdf:rest ... >> mean that the extensions of :Mammalian :Reptilian ... >> are different sets or that they are mutually disjoint? > >Neither. They could have the same extension, but still be different >individuals. Exactly, that's why I guess Jim proposed owl:AllDisjointClasses (or someone else before owl:AllDisjoint). -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 13:44:30 UTC