Is subclassing "strict order" or is it reflexive? RE: [sc34wg3] New SAM PSIs

[Anthony B. Coates]

** Reply to message from Murray Altheim <m.altheim@open.ac.uk> on Fri, 14 Feb
2003 14:45:35 +0000

> On the one hand, and the error I think OWL is making, is that it
> seems to be talking about *members* of sets. So, if we have a set A
> and a set B whose members are all the same, they are identical sets.
> Eg., if we have 100 hominids and 100 primates, and they are the same
> 100 individuals, we can consider the two sets identical. We cannot,
> and I repeat, cannot, necessarily therefore consider the classes of
> primates and hominids as identical. They are not.

A set of 100 hominids is not the set of all hominids, just a lousy subset.  If
you cannot find any case of a being that is hominid or primate, but not both,
then you have to conclude that hominids and primates are identical.

	Cheers,
		Tony.
====
Anthony B. Coates, Information & Software Architect
mailto:abcoates@TheOffice.net
Reuters Messaging: abcoates.londonmarketsystems.com@reuters.net
====
MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language), http://www.mddl.org/
FpML AWG Member (Financial Products Markup Language), http://www.fpml.org/