Re: Why is there no rdfs:isSuperClassOf?

Hi all,

thanks for the replies.

@Mark Wallace
I guessed it already. Sure, it makes it super consious, something I am 
of course a fan too. Yet, I feel like defining inverse Properties are 
still worth it.

@Michael F Uschold
Thansk a lot, I wasn't aware of that syntax. It looks like a very nice 
work-arround. Yet, for non-"knowledge-engineers", this might be a bit 
confusing.

@David Booth
Thanks a lot for the link!

(my comments on the text in the link)
/In Turtle syntax, it is also fairly easy to live with just one property 
for the primary direction of the relationship type,  as long as you do 
not deal with blank nodes. /
It is true, but not always convenient.

/This may mean that we really need to think about providing inverse 
properties in schema.org if both directions occur in popular HTML 
content. However, because such will blow up the size of schema.org, the 
choice should not be made lightheartedly.//
//Whatever we decide, I **strongly* suggest that inverse properties will 
follow a consistent naming convention that will allow to derive them 
mechanically from the property for the primary direction./
100% agree

/Also, introducing inverse properties will mean that clients will have 
to use come kind of reasoning to understand both directions of a 
relationship./
True. I guess it could make life for the "knowledge engineer" nicer, but 
at the same time increase the complexity for the "data capturer".

/We should apply E.F. Codd's idea of the normalization of representation 
data to the stack of standards for a Web of Data ;-)./
[@Hepp] Care to elaborate a bit on this one?


Best regards,
Niklas Petersen

On 2015-04-06 23:42, David Booth wrote:
> Re: Why is there no rdfs:isSuperClassOf?
> 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?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20is%20there%20no%20rdfs%3AisSuperClassOf%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C5522FDC2.7030005%40dbooth.org%3E&References=%3C5522FDC2.7030005%40dbooth.org%3E>
> >     <mailto:petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de  <mailto:petersen@cs.uni-bonn.de?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20is%20there%20no%20rdfs%3AisSuperClassOf%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C5522FDC2.7030005%40dbooth.org%3E&References=%3C5522FDC2.7030005%40dbooth.org%3E>>]
> >     Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 2:15 PM
> >     To:semantic-web@w3.org  <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20is%20there%20no%20rdfs%3AisSuperClassOf%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C5522FDC2.7030005%40dbooth.org%3E&References=%3C5522FDC2.7030005%40dbooth.org%3E>  <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org  <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Why%20is%20there%20no%20rdfs%3AisSuperClassOf%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C5522FDC2.7030005%40dbooth.org%3E&References=%3C5522FDC2.7030005%40dbooth.org%3E>>
> >     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
> >
> >
> >


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