- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:06:47 +0100
- To: <fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br>, <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: <cbalon@grci.com>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Hi Jos, et al., > [ a :X, [ daml:complementOf :Y ] ]. > i.e. there exists some t such that t element of X and t not > element of Y Aha... so this is saying the same as Corey's suggestion of (something like):- :P daml:complementOf :Y . :Q rdfs:subClassOf :P, :X . Which is fine, because then you get something like:- [ Y ][ notY (i.e. P) [ Q ] ] Where the class "X" can be any superclass of Q - it could be a sub class of notY, it could be equal to notY, it could be equal to notY and a part of Y, or it could be equal to the whole lot - but it can't be a sub class of Y. Great... The difference is that Corey's method is to say that there is some class that obeys there rules, and your method is to say that there is some instance of that class. So, is it better to say "these classes are arranged thus", or "there is an instance which obeys these rules"? Are there any advantages at all to either method? -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 12:09:55 UTC