#21 Clarification of inverse relations

RO
open
nobody
5
2008-07-06
2008-07-06
William Hogan
No

If R and S are inverse relations, then aRb <-> bSa. Thus, if you define uterus part-of pelvis, that implies pelvis has-part uterus. However, the latter statement is not true. By defining part-of and has-part as inverse, you have made them say the same thing as integral-part-of. Defining part-of and has-part as inverse relations is an error.

Discussion

  • William Hogan
    William Hogan
    2008-07-06

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=2135271
    Originator: YES

    At the class level, that is.