Re: What do the ontologists want

   [seth russell]
   Incidentally, I'm still trying to wrap my pee brain around the idea that
   there is a problem with 'not' here.   To me {B subClass A.  C subClass A.  B
   not C.} is a perfectly valid thing to say and nicely implies {B xor C}.
   Does it not ?

I don't understand the example.  Is this three triples?  If so, what
does B not C mean?  Are A, B, and C themselves supposed to be triples
or reified triples?  If not, how do you negate a triple?

                                             -- Drew McDermott