- From: Emery, Pat <pemery@grci.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:42:43 -0400
- To: "'jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com'" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, sean@mysterylights.com
- Cc: fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br, "Balon, Corey" <cbalon@grci.com>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
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/
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 16:43:17 UTC