Infix conjuctions are not commutative

[phillord]

Conjuction is commutative in OWL, but not in Scowl. Consider:

scala> import org.phenoscape.scowl._

import org.phenoscape.scowl._

scala>
scala> val a = Class("a")
a: org.semanticweb.owlapi.model.OWLClass = <a>

scala> val b = Class("b")
b: org.semanticweb.owlapi.model.OWLClass = <b>

scala> val c = Class("c")
c: org.semanticweb.owlapi.model.OWLClass = <c>

scala> a and b and c
res0: org.semanticweb.owlapi.model.OWLObjectIntersectionOf = ObjectIntersectionOf(<a> <b> <c>)

scala> a and (b and c)
res1: org.semanticweb.owlapi.model.OWLObjectIntersectionOf = ObjectIntersectionOf(<a> ObjectIntersectionOf(<b> <c>))

scala> (b and c) and a
res2: org.semanticweb.owlapi.model.OWLObjectIntersectionOf = ObjectIntersectionOf(<a> <b> <c>)

All of these results make sense except for the last which should return
ObjectIntersectionOf(<a> ObjectIntersectionOf(<b> <c>)) I think.

I think this is caused bc2d369 which addresses #3 unfortunately.

Just playing with Scowl and Scala. Very nice piece of work (Scowl that is,
Scala I will reserve judgement on for the moment)

[balhoff]

Thanks for the report! In the spirit of #3 I would be inclined to change a and (b and c) to return ObjectIntersectionOf(<a> <b> <c>). I don't think there is a way to distinguish a and b and c from (a and b) and c in the code being called, since the parentheses just match the normal Scala order of operations. Does this sound okay for the "Manchester" syntax? The functional style is still available for creating nested intersections of unions.

[phillord]

shrugs. Six to one, half a dozen to the other. You trading off the gain in commutativity for the loss of non-associativity.

Can you not overload the and method to deal specifically with an OWLObjectIntersection to not use asConjunctSet. I guess that would work but would break A and B and C and D.

I don't have this problem in tawny, cause I use prefix notation. But then I can't do A and B or C so nicely.