RE: Not-subClassOf

I believe that [ a :X, [ daml:complementOf :Y ] ] is a stronger statement
than was
required for "a class X is not a subclass of class Y"
This method implies there is an instance of class X.  This may not be true.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
[mailto:jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:41 PM
To: sean@mysterylights.com
Cc: fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br; cbalon@grci.com; www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Subject: Re: Not-subClassOf



sean:
[...]
> 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"?

True, they are indeed similar
  [ a :X, [ daml:complementOf :Y ] ].
and
  [ daml:subClassOf :X, [ daml:complementOf :Y ] ].

> Are there any advantages at all to either method?

We actually could ask "what do the ontologists want?"...
[it's my experience that instances are useful as
terms in axioms, but I have to think about it]

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/