- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:15:04 +0100
- To: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
On 12 Sep 2005, at 20:25, Matt Williams wrote: > > Dear List, > > Rather a basic question, and it may have been answered, but I couldn't > find anything in the archives. > > I'm wondering if I can say "not R.C" (where R and C are a role and > class > respectively). I'm trying to express a concept such as "doesn't have > treatment with tamoxifen", so I'm not really looking for the complement > of R, just a way of expressing that the relationship R.C won't hold for > a particular individual. It seems that what you mean is "not exists R.C". This is a perfectly good class/concept, and you can simply assert that the individual in question is an instance of this class. Ian > > Thanks a lot, > > Matt > > >
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 10:15:10 UTC