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

RE: Not-subClassOf

From: Emery, Pat <pemery@grci.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:42:43 -0400
Message-ID: <09A65DF294F8D311AAB000105A02DBAF360979@thumper.va.grci.com>
To: "'jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com'" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, sean@mysterylights.com
Cc: fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br, "Balon, Corey" <cbalon@grci.com>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
I believe that [ a :X, [ daml:complementOf :Y ] ] is a stronger statement
than was
required for "a class X is not a subclass of class Y"
This method implies there is an instance of class X.  This may not be true.


-----Original Message-----
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:41 PM
To: sean@mysterylights.com
Cc: fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br; cbalon@grci.com; www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Subject: Re: Not-subClassOf

> 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 ] ].
  [ 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 16:43:17 UTC

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