- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:22:52 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote: > Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> wrote: > > >> It's true that rdf:type gets close to this, > >> but there is a general need for negation in this case, even without getting > >> into logic and all that. > > I think that's where DAML-ONT (or whatever it's called these days) comes in > > to play. > > Perhaps we can add this to DAML -- I know they have disjoint, but I don't > think that's the same as opposite... Well, you could have an equivalent class to "everything" that was the disjoint superclass of "X" and "notX". -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Donate a signature: http://tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/~cmjg/sig-submit
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2001 06:25:06 UTC