[sc34wg3] TMCL: 4.4.7 Not DisJoint Constraint
Lars Marius Garshol
larsga at garshol.priv.no
Tue Feb 19 06:56:46 EST 2008
* Robert Barta
> Firstly, from where is the underlying assumption that types are
> per-se disjoint?
From experience. Pick two types, from any one or two ontologies,
which are not in a supertype-subtype relation (directly or
indirectly). Will they be distinct? 97% of the time, they will.
> Or should this be the other way round, like in OWL with owl:disjoint?
It could be, but then all ontologies will either be incomplete or full
of disjoint statements.
> And secondly, why does this only affect two types? Why not 3, or more?
> Is this just a limitation carried over from CTM as that cannot take a
> list of parameters?
I think so.
> Thirdly, a better example would be .... better. :-)
> NotDisjointConstraint (Cat, Dog)
More information about the sc34wg3