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

RE: Why is there no rdfs:isSuperClassOf?

From: Mark Wallace <mwallace@modusoperandi.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 18:37:51 +0000
To: Niklas Petersen <petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM2PR08MB398A9BB746AF4B4E37CA381C3FE0@DM2PR08MB398.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
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 

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

-----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?


Best regards,
Niklas Petersen

Niklas Petersen,
Organized Knowledge Group @Fraunhofer IAIS,
Enterprise Information Systems Group @University of Bonn.

Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 18:38:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:42 UTC