Why is there no rdfs:isSuperClassOf?

• From: Niklas Petersen <petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de>
• Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 20:14:34 +0200
• To: semantic-web@w3.org
• Message-ID: <5522CD0A.4070803@cs.uni-bonn.de>

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.

Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 18:15:05 UTC