Re: Does rdfs:superClassOf (or equivalent) exist?

No, we just wished we had called it “super-class” instead of “sub class
of”. Same relationship just less wordy and backwards-sounding

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 at 13:28, Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com> wrote:

> 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,
> --
> ---
> Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D
> Assistant Professor
> ADAPT Centre, Dublin City University
> https://harshp.com/
>
>