W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2003

Re: owl:All(something) ??

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 01:31:32 +0200
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC3B70EBF.4E97FFD3-ONC1256D26.007FD3D1-C1256D26.00813D73@agfa.be>

We had to change the domain of owl:distinctMembers
(which was owl:AllDifferent) into... we took owl:Thing
which is OK I guess for OWL Full; but maybe an issue
for OWL DL.
We also had some explosion (in our gedcom case) in conjunction with
{?A owl:disjointWith ?B. ?X a ?A. ?Y a ?B} => {?X owl:differentFrom ?Y}.
as there are now extra paths leading to ?A owl:disjointWith ?B.

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                    Jos De_Roo                                                                                     
                                         To:     Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>@AGFASMTP                         
                    2003-05-14           cc:     Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, webont                      
                    07:35 PM             <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org                      
                                         Subject:     Re: owl:All(something) ??(Document link: Jos De_Roo)         

>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...
>>[ 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
>[ 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 19:31:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:45 UTC