- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:16:07 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
rdfs:superClassOf (respectively rdfs:superPropertyOf) does not exist in any standard, nor any term equivalent to it. If it did, it would not add anything to reasoning or querying. If you want to list all subclasses of a class <C>, you can write: SELECT ?subclass WHERE { ?subclass rdfs:subClassOf <C> . } and if you want the list of superclasses of a class <C>, you write: SELECT ?superclass WHERE { <C> rdfs:subClassOf ?superclass . } What use cases would make it harder and more painful to write: :A rdfs:subClassOf :B than: :B rdfs:superClassOf :A ? --AZ Le 28/10/2023 à 14:21, Harshvardhan J. Pandit a écrit : > Hi. > We have rdfs:subClassOf defined in a standardised specification (RDFS). > RDFS several times mentions 'superclass', but AFAIK there is no property > or relation to make this explicit, i.e. > > ```turtle > :A rdfs:subClassOf :B . # exists > :B rdfs:superClassOf :A . # does this exist anywhere? > ``` > > I can intuit why subclass relations are the most common and preferred > methods of use - because anyone can extend the superclass from anywhere. > And that either assertion can be inferred from the other (sub to super, > vice-versa), but I also think having the superclass be 'aware' of > subclasses is a good practice in maintaining ontologies e.g. to get a > list of all subclasses which would normally require a query each time. > > (Likewise for rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:superPropertyOf) > > Apologies in advance if this has already been answered somewhere (I > would appreciate it if you point me to it). > > Regards, -- Antoine Zimmermann École des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel CS 62362 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 49 97 02 http://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/
Received on Monday, 30 October 2023 15:16:17 UTC