W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > September 2005

Re: Role Negation in OWL

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:15:04 +0100
Message-Id: <ea186c9232c50f662fbd8c9a962e7605@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
To: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>

On 12 Sep 2005, at 20:25, Matt Williams wrote:

>
> Dear List,
>
> Rather a basic question, and it may have been answered, but I couldn't
> find anything in the archives.
>
> I'm wondering if I can say "not R.C" (where R and C are a role and 
> class
> respectively). I'm trying to express a concept such as "doesn't have
> treatment with tamoxifen", so I'm not really looking for the complement
> of R, just a way of expressing that the relationship R.C won't hold for
> a particular individual.

It seems that what you mean is "not exists R.C". This is a perfectly 
good class/concept, and you can simply assert that the individual in 
question is an instance of this class.

Ian



>
> Thanks a lot,
>
> Matt
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 10:15:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:50 GMT