RE: Why is there no rdfs:isSuperClassOf?

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.