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 13:48:11 -0700
Message-ID: <004701c0dfdb$dbcdbfa0$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Drew McDermott" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>

> > [1] http://robustai.net/mentography/implicationOfxor.gif
> Isn't an "exclusive or" just stating something as being a disjoint
> union? Same thing: exclusive/disjoint union/or. But I think you just
> mean that they are pairwise disjoint, rather than that A is a union of
> B and C.

I guess I have as much trouble understanding strings of words as you guys
seem to have understanding diagrams.   Maybe we can resort to another kind
of diagram ... one that has been around for years and is universally
understood --- Venn diagrams.   So I have drawn a Venn diagram of the
situation [2].   You can see that {B not C, D, E} holds; whereas {D not E}
does not.  A is just our domain of discource.

[2] http://robustai.net/mentography/bnotc.jpg

Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 22:09:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:38 UTC