Re: Nice to see http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/n3/venn.svg (false notation) from Dan Connolly on 2008-05-07 (public-cwm-talk@w3.org from April to June 2008)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 17:29:33 -0500
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Cc: timbl@w3.org, public-cwm-talk@w3.org
Message-Id: <1210199373.4651.455.camel@pav.lan>

On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 20:58 +0200, jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:
[...]
> but I wonder wether using false instead of {} wouldn't be better,
> like
> 
> {?X owl:disjointWith ?Y. ?Z a ?X. ?Z a ?Y} => false.
> 
> No?

Yes.

I was never quite comfortable with Euler's use of {}
to denote false.

Meanwhile... I used a different representation for false
when I was doing something similar. Perhaps that
was just because the 'false' syntax wasn't introduced
yet.

for reference...

Playing around with N3, OWL, and inconsistency
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cwm-talk/2006AprJun/0007.html

 Equality and inconsistency in the rules layer
 by connolly on Mon, 2006-06-05
 http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/141

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 22:30:07 UTC