W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Not-subClassOf

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:41:22 +0100
To: sean@mysterylights.com
Cc: fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br, cbalon@grci.com, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFDC6F392F.0454AEEA-ON41256A55.006A6B8E@bayer-ag.com>

sean:
[...]
> 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"?

True, they are indeed similar
  [ a :X, [ daml:complementOf :Y ] ].
and
  [ daml:subClassOf :X, [ daml:complementOf :Y ] ].

> Are there any advantages at all to either method?

We actually could ask "what do the ontologists want?"...
[it's my experience that instances are useful as
terms in axioms, but I have to think about it]

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 14:42:37 UTC

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