- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 17:42:26 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de>
FYI, see also Martin Hepp's excellent comments on the public-vocabs list regarding inverse properties: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Apr/0200.html David Booth > -----Original Message----- > From: Niklas Petersen [mailto:petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de > <mailto:petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de>] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 2:15 PM > To: semantic-web@w3.org <mailto: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 <http://www.semanticarts.com/> > LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/michaeluschold > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaeluschold> > Skype, Twitter: UscholdM > > >
Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 21:42:53 UTC