- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:30:04 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> [seth russell] > Incidentally, I'm still trying to wrap my pea 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 ? > [drew mcdermott] > ... 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 classes - see diagram. The problem with 'not' is how to negate a triple (or any other statement). Expressing (B xor C) doesn't address that problem, does it? -- Drew McDermott
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 10:30:15 UTC