Re: Inverses of RDF and RDFS predicates

Hi David,

Can you please articulate one or more use cases to accompany this feature request?  Thanks.

Regards,
Dave




On Apr 29, 2012, at 19:43, David Booth wrote:

> If this has already been considered and rejected by the WG then please
> ignore, but . . . 
> 
> It would be helpful if the RDF and RDFS specs defined inverses for the
> properties that they define.  For example, if
> 
>  :x  rdf:type  :C .
> 
> then one might write:
> 
>  :C rdf:isTypeOf :x .
> 
> and similarly for other properties.
> 
> I have resorted to defining my own inverse properties for some of these,
> but it seems silly to do so, rather than standardizing them, especially
> since it wouldn't add anything significant to the semantics.
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
> 
>