Re: Deduced property

I have come across this problem recently in some work I have been doing investigating people's understanding of OWL constructs.  You can't assume that property characteristics are inherited - some are (e.g. functionality), some aren't (e.g. transitivity and symmetry).  But I have found no reference in any documentation to this fact.

Cheers,

Paul Warren


________________________________
 From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
To: semantic-web@w3.org 
Sent: Wednesday, 29 January 2014, 17:05
Subject: Re: Deduced property
 

OWL, and the underlying logic, are quite different from object oriented 
modelling so using terms like "inheritance" can trip you up. Especially 
when it comes to property axioms.

In the RDF/OWL way of thinking then a property corresponds to set of 
pairs of things that are related by the property. So saying

     :hasParent rdfs:subPropertyOf :hasAncestor

means, and only means, that the set of pairs of things related by 
:hasParent is a subset of the set of pairs of things related by 
:hasAncestor.

It's sets all the way down :)

Dave

On 29/01/14 16:47, Jean-Claude Moissinac wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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
>>         <mailto: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
>>         >
>>
>>
>>
>
>