RE: Not-subClassOf

> From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com [mailto:jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com]
> [pemery@grci.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?

Not necessarily; it may simply be that we do not know of (or wish to
represent) an instance of that class.  I should be able to refer to the
class of honest politicians (which is not a subclass of the class of
moderate politicians) without necessarily having to provide evidence that an
honest politician exists or having to describe one.

		- Peter