Re: Deduced property

OK
I really thought that the transitivity was inherited. I will try to find
where and how the non-inheritance is specified
Thank you

--
Jean-Claude Moissinac



2014-01-29 Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@stanford.edu>

> Hi Jean-Claude,
>
> Asserting
>
> :hasParent rdfs:subClassOf :hasAncestor
>
> and
>
> :hasAncestor rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty
>
> does not mean that :hasParent is also transitive.  Transitivity isn’t
> “inherited” down the property hierarchy, so it’s possible to have a
> non-transitive sub property of a transitive super property.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
> On 29 Jan 2014, at 08:30, Jean-Claude Moissinac <
> jean-claude.moissinac@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote:
>
> No, it's not the answer because hasAncestor is transitive and hasParent
> isn't...
> (I've a lot of similar situations)
>
> --
> Jean-Claude Moissinac
>
>
>
> 2014-01-29 Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
>
>> Jean-Claude,
>>
>> You’re looking for this (in Turtle syntax):
>>
>>   :hasParent rdfs:subClassOf :hasAncestor.
>>
>> (Don’t try to read or write RDF/XML directly. You’ll go mad. Use the
>> friendly syntaxes such as Turtle, or graphical tools.)
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On 29 Jan 2014, at 16:18, Jean-Claude Moissinac <
>> jean-claude.moissinac@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry if my question is very naive, but I'm stuck on this for a while
>> > if I go to examples in the document
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-primer-20090421/
>> > I just want to add the following axiom (expressed here in my syntax)
>> > if
>> > ?s :hasParent  ?f
>> > Then
>> > ?s :hasAncestor ?f
>> >
>> > I've checked a lot of documents and I don't figure how to do it
>> (directly in XML/RDF or interactively with Protégé)
>> >
>> > Thank you in adavnace for your help
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jean-Claude
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>