- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:48:02 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>Guha wrote: > > > > Ora, > > > > I think they *are* supposed to be disjoint. > >That's good, since you can deduce that they're disjoint >from this semantics > >DAML-ONT Axioms >http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/DAML-Ont-kif-axioms-001127.html >Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:16:36 GMT > >er... at least I think you can... where did the >axioms about what a class is (set of singletons) >and what a property is (a set of pairs) go? >They were in an earlier draft, no? > >Anyway, the proof goes: > > Every class is a set of singletons > Every property is a set of pairs > nothing is both a singleton and a pair > => the intersection of classes and properties is empty. That would be valid, certainly, but why is a class a set of singletons? (Shouldn't a class be allowed to be a set of anything? What is the utility of restricting it to singletons? For example, couldnt I have a class of, say, people, rather than singletons of people?) Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 17:46:38 UTC