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