- 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