W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2006

Re: Negation and "Opposition"

From: Pdm <editor@content-wire.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:57:33 +0100
Message-ID: <446350DD.4020606@content-wire.com>
To: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

Hi Matt

I dont know if my answer resolves your question or kills your patient - 
also because I may formulate the rule differently but If your problem 
is  the accidental reference of the rule to sheep,planes and mobile 
phones, then the answer may be 'create a class'

so that  the answer is

"anything that is disjoint with tamoxifen"  and "is of class: treatement"
that would restict the choice to an acceple category of resolution


>Because of these two things, the ontological notion of negation is
>important. For example, if we have the rule:
>Tamoxifen(x) -> Dead(x)
>then I want to develop a rule that says (roughly):
>notValues(Dead(x)) -> not Tamoxifen(x)
>Leaving aside the values bit, negating the Tamoxifen seems a bit
>difficult - because (as I understand it) it means "anything that is
>disjoint with tamoxifen" - which might include other treatments, but
>also might include sheep, planes and mobile phones....
>Does this make sense - and if so, does anyone have any ideas about how
>to resolve it?
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 14:57:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:40:59 UTC