- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:38:10 +0100
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> To me {B subClass A. C subClass A. B not C.} is a
> perfectly valid thing to say and nicely implies {B xor C}.
How about using DAML "disjointWith" instead of not, or if you mean
that A can only contain B or C, and that B and C are disjoint, try:-
:A daml:disjointUnionOf (:B :C) .
--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 12:27:08 UTC