- From: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 12:56:43 +0100
- To: "'jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com'" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> 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
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 07:57:03 UTC