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

Wish away, mate :-)

But nah, it is much more common in computing in general, and possibly RDF, to talk about subclass and subClassing, I think.

In any case, if you had called it superClass, then I would have had to look it up every time to check which way the relationship went. ;-)
And I'm sure you wouldn't want to upset me.
So it would have had to be hasSuperClass, which you would find wordy as well.

There you go.


> On 30 Oct 2023, at 15:27, Dan Brickley <> wrote:
> 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 <> 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

+44 7595 334155

Received on Monday, 30 October 2023 15:44:26 UTC