- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:04:36 +0100
- To: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Hi Jos, Fernanda, > [ a :X; a [ ns:complement :Y ] ] For "X is not a sub class of Y", on the lines of what you've done above, I think you'd just say something like:- :X rdfs:subClassOf [ daml:complementOf :Y ] . cf. [1] But, as DanBri pointed out, that's just like saying that they're disjoint [2], so all you need to state is that:- :X daml:disjointFrom :Y . cf. [3] As simple as that. Or, you could say they're pairwise disjoint, if you have a lot of classes that you want to mark as being disjoint. Hope that helps, [1] Here's the first example in XML RDF:- <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#X"> <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:Class> <daml:complementOf rdf:resource="#Y"/> </rdfs:Class> </rdfs:subClassOf> </rdfs:Class> [2] From the DAML walkthru:- [[[ In effect, the above makes the class Car disjoint from the class Person (since Car is declared to be a subClass of the complementOf Person). Because such disjointness statements among classes occur very frequently, DAML+OIL has a specific vocabulary for this special case. The same fact could have been stated using the disjointWith tag that we already saw above in the definition of Female. ]]] - http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru [3] And the second example in XML RDF:- <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#X"> <daml:disjointWith rdf:resource="#Y"/> </rdfs:Class> -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 19:05:51 UTC