- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:15:43 -0700
- To: "Drew McDermott" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Drew McDermott" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
> [seth russell]
> Incidentally, I'm still trying to wrap my pee brain around the idea
that
> there is a problem with 'not' here. To me {B subClass A. C subClass
A. B
> not C.} is a perfectly valid thing to say and nicely implies {B xor C}.
> Does it not ?
>
> I don't understand the example. Is this three triples?
Yes, three triples and one triple implied with A, B, C being classes - see
diagram.
> If so, what does B not C mean?
It means that if a thing is a B, then it cannot also be a C.
>Are A, B, and C themselves supposed to be triples
> or reified triples?
Nope they are classess - see diagram.
>If not, how do you negate a triple?
I hadent though about that one .. should I ?
[1] http://robustai.net/mentography/implicationOfxor.gif
Note I didn't put in the quantifications, but when the whole scheme of
things is defined, those will be rather easy .. me thinks.
Seth
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 16:21:06 UTC