From: pat hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 10/16/00
>pat hayes wrote: > > >[...] > > > >In what way is > > > The class C is the disjoint union of the classes > > > in the list L. > > >not an assertion? > > > > > That is an assertion, but according to your specs "the disjoint union > > of the classes in the list L" has to be an assertion as well (since > > it can be false). > >Which part of the spec suggests that? This conversation began when I asked you what the value of disjointUnion was when its argument class was not disjoint, and you said it was false. ><Class ID="C"> > <disjointUnionOf resource="#L"/> ></Class> > >is an assertion; in English, see above. In KIF, it would >be > (disjoinUnionOf C L) >but *not* > (= C (disjointUnionOf L)) (As a side comment, the notation seems even more brain-damaged with this reading, but let that pass.) >There are no operators, >expressions, or anything like that, anywhere in RDF. >There just aren't. Ah, I get the idea. Indeed I had been misreading this as "C is the disjoint union of L", and assuming that an expression like <disjointUnionOf resource="#L"/> was itself well-formed. OK, let me express my question in a different way. Suppose I say <Class ID="C"><disjointUnionOf resource="#L"/> </Class> and L is not in fact pairwise disjoint, so this is false. Now, (1) have I asserted a falsehood, ie are my assertions inconsistent? Or have I simply not said anything? (2) What, if anything, follows about the value of C? Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/02 EST