Re: Inference in daml

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>; <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Inference in daml


> > >       [ :unionOf (:Animal [ :complementOf :Dog ]) ] .
> > [...]
> > Ultimately I'm trying to express the rule that if something is a dog
> > then it is an animal.
>
> Oh, easy:-
>
>    :Dog rdfs:subClassOf :Animal .
>

Thanks for the response, but... I guess I need to be careful about my
(over)use of adverbs -- "ultimately"  I'm not trying to express anything
about dogs or animals necessarily but to translate inference rules of all
(or some) types into daml terms (if possible).  My example was a bad one
because there are so many ways without explicit inference to get the point
across (as you've demonstrated).

-geoff

Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 18:17:33 UTC