- From: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:04:51 -0700
- To: Mark Wallace <mwallace@modusoperandi.com>
- Cc: Niklas Petersen <petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADfiEMO8_6qnFugZozoiCDd-b4eu3oJNL6FkjeVZT5CreGxfsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Im not sure of the exact syntax, but an in-between solution is to use an expreseion using the owl:inverseOf construct. This way you do not have to create and name the inverse explictly. :someSuperClass (owl:inverseOf rdfs:subClassOf) :someSubClassA , On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Mark Wallace <mwallace@modusoperandi.com> wrote: > 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. > > > -- Michael Uschold Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts http://www.semanticarts.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/michaeluschold Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 21:05:19 UTC