- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:42:07 +0100
- To: pemery@grci.com
- Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, sean@mysterylights.com, fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br, 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. So if there is no instance of class X then X the empty set, no? But the empty set is a subset of any set thus also of Y and thus this case is ruled out. Also what I meant with > [it's my experience that instances are useful as > terms in axioms, but I have to think about it] was that terms could be extra qualified like [ a :X, [ daml:complementOf :Y ]; :extra :stuff ]. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 07:42:46 UTC