RE: Not-subClassOf

> 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.

So if there is no instance of class X then X the empty set, no?
But the empty set is a subset of any set thus also of Y
and thus this case is ruled out.
Also what I meant with
> [it's my experience that instances are useful as
> terms in axioms, but I have to think about it]
was that terms could be extra qualified like
  [ a :X, [ daml:complementOf :Y ]; :extra :stuff ].

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 07:42:46 UTC