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

Re: What do the ontologists want

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:15:43 -0700
Message-ID: <002d01c0dfd7$52314fe0$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
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
>    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

> 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.

Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 16:21:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:37 UTC