RE: Not-subClassOf

whoops, mixed up X's and Y's

actually

:Z daml:subClassOf [ daml:complementOf :Y ]
:Z daml:subClassOf :X



-----Original Message-----
From: Balon, Corey [mailto:cbalon@grci.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 8:34 AM
To: 'jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com'; sean@mysterylights.com
Cc: fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br; www-rdf-interest@w3.org;
www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Subject: RE: Not-subClassOf


if you want to sat :X notSubClassOf :Y

then can you say something similar to

:Z daml:subClassOf [ daml:complementOf :X ]
:Z daml:subClassOf :Y

in other words, there exists a class Z which is a subClassOf
Y and a subClassOf the complement of X

This way you know there is at least one little part of Y that's
not in X

guess you need to add somehow that Z is not daml:Nothing
(is that assumed??)


-----Original Message-----
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
[mailto:jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 8:19 PM
To: sean@mysterylights.com
Cc: fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br; www-rdf-interest@w3.org;
www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Subject: Re: Not-subClassOf



Hi Sean, 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 .

I can imagine X and Y to be 'overlapping' classes such as
   ------
  |X     |
  |    ------
  |   |  |   |
   ------    |
      |     Y|
       ------
and X is not a subclass of Y
so...

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 08:43:09 UTC