W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

Re: What do the ontologists want

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:38:10 +0100
Message-ID: <031c01c0dfb0$9cdad880$17d993c3@z5n9x1>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:35 UTC