Re: What do the ontologists want

> 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/> .