W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Why is there no rdfs:isSuperClassOf?

From: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:04:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CADfiEMO8_6qnFugZozoiCDd-b4eu3oJNL6FkjeVZT5CreGxfsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Wallace <mwallace@modusoperandi.com>
Cc: Niklas Petersen <petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Im not sure of the exact syntax, but an in-between solution is to use an
expreseion using the owl:inverseOf construct. This way you do not have to
create and name the inverse explictly.

:someSuperClass (owl:inverseOf rdfs:subClassOf) :someSubClassA ,

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Mark Wallace <mwallace@modusoperandi.com>
wrote:

> I would say that it just a case of keeping the vocabulary simple/concise.
> It
> appears to me that none of the RDFS properties [1] provide an inverse, so
> providing them in only a couple of cases would perhaps be considered too
> arbitrary, and providing them in all cases would perhaps be considered too
> verbose.
>
> Personally, I'm a big fan of concise, so I'm good with it. :-)
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_utilvocab
>
> --
> Mark Wallace
> PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, SEMANTIC APPLICATIONS
> MODUS OPERANDI, INC.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niklas Petersen [mailto:petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 2:15 PM
> To: semantic-web@w3.org
> Subject: Why is there no rdfs:isSuperClassOf?
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> when formalizing an ontology, there are moments where I prefer to write:
>
>      :someSuperClass rdfs:isSuperClassOf :someSubClassA , :someSubClassB ,
> :someSubClassC .
>
> instead of:
>
>      :someSubClassA rdfs:isSubClassOf :someSuperClass .
>      :someSubClassB rdfs:isSubClassOf :someSuperClass .
>      :someSubClassC rdfs:isSubClassOf :someSuperClass .
>
>
> I am aware that I could define it myself using owl:inverseOf, but something
> that "important", I feel like it should't be defined in my own namespace.
> The
> same thought also goes with "isSuperPropertyOf".
>
> I see [1] that certain reasoners/species don't allow it, but it isn't
> completely forbidden, is it?
>
>
>
>
> http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/2761/define-hassubclass-as-inverseof-subclassof
>
>
> Best regards,
> Niklas Petersen
>
> --
> Niklas Petersen,
> Organized Knowledge Group @Fraunhofer IAIS,
> Enterprise Information Systems Group @University of Bonn.
>
>
>


-- 

Michael Uschold
   Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
   http://www.semanticarts.com
   LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/michaeluschold
   Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 21:05:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:59 UTC