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 C29EReceived on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 22:30:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 May 2008 22:30:12 GMT