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

Re: Not-subClassOf

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:06:47 +0100
Message-ID: <032101c0e3a2$7414c820$3fdc93c3@z5n9x1>
To: <fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br>, <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: <cbalon@grci.com>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Hi Jos, et al.,

> [ a :X, [ daml:complementOf :Y ] ].
> i.e. there exists some t such that t element of X and t not
> element of Y

Aha... so this is saying the same as Corey's suggestion of (something
like):-

   :P daml:complementOf :Y .
   :Q rdfs:subClassOf :P, :X .

Which is fine, because then you get something like:-

   [ Y ][   notY (i.e. P)  [ Q ] ]

Where the class "X" can be any superclass of Q - it could be a sub
class of notY, it could be equal to notY, it could be equal to notY
and a part of Y, or it could be equal to the whole lot - but it can't
be a sub class of Y. Great... The difference is that Corey's method is
to say that there is some class that obeys there rules, and your
method is to say that there is some instance of that class. So, is it
better to say "these classes are arranged thus", or "there is an
instance which obeys these rules"?  Are there any advantages at all to
either method?

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 12:09:55 UTC

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