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

RE: Not-subClassOf

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:42:07 +0100
To: pemery@grci.com
Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, sean@mysterylights.com, fernanda@ppgia.pucpr.br, cbalon@grci.com, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFE6241EF9.C7F66436-ON41256A56.0044D344@bayer-ag.com>

> 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

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