Open arademaker opened 5 years ago
It looks like there is no easy way to prove that ins Vertebrate Class
from ins Vertebrate SetOrClass
. The axioms from subclass
have the types as conditions.
We have (partition SetOrClass Set Class)
but we don't have ways to say that something is not a Set
.
It looks like the only way is to show that is using the axiom below and showing that it is a subclass of Entity
:
(<=>
(instance ?CLASS Class)
(subclass ?CLASS Entity))
But for that, I will need to use the fact that subclass
is a PartialOrderingRelation
This is actually already identified in #1 by @fcbr
The question is how we should interpret the axioms below:
(instance subclass BinaryPredicate)
(instance subclass PartialOrderingRelation)
(domain subclass 1 SetOrClass)
(domain subclass 2 SetOrClass)
...
(=>
(subclass ?X ?Y)
(and
(instance ?X SetOrClass)
(instance ?Y SetOrClass)))
The original axiom could be used to type the arguments, but the translation turns this axiom useless.