W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Not-subClassOf

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:04:36 +0100
Message-ID: <004101c0e313$97e00a60$2ef189d4@z5n9x1>
To: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Hi Jos, Fernanda,

> [ a :X; a [ ns:complement :Y ] ]

For "X is not a sub class of Y", on the lines of what you've done
above, I think you'd just say something like:-

   :X rdfs:subClassOf [ daml:complementOf :Y ] .

cf. [1]

But, as DanBri pointed out, that's just like saying that they're
disjoint [2], so all you need to state is that:-

   :X daml:disjointFrom :Y .

cf. [3]

As simple as that. Or, you could say they're pairwise disjoint, if you
have a lot of classes that you want to mark as being disjoint.

Hope that helps,

[1] Here's the first example in XML RDF:-
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#X">
      <daml:complementOf rdf:resource="#Y"/>

[2] From the DAML walkthru:-
In effect, the above makes the class Car disjoint from the class
Person (since Car is declared to be a subClass of the complementOf
Person). Because such disjointness statements among classes occur very
frequently, DAML+OIL has a specific vocabulary for this special case.
The same fact could have been stated using the disjointWith tag that
we already saw above in the definition of Female.
]]] - http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru

[3] And the second example in XML RDF:-
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#X">
   <daml:disjointWith rdf:resource="#Y"/>

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 19:05:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:30 UTC