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

Well yes - this was the issue

RDFS WG was launched a few months after RDF WG, and RDF model & syntax went
to REC with language including “*s has a property p with a value o” *


…as an unpacking of “s p o” triples.

“sdo:Article has a sub-class-of property with a value of sdo:CreativeWork”

This sounds awkwardly close to “Article has a sub class, CreativeWork”
which is ass-backwards :)

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 15:50, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> OTOH rdfs:superClass would have been consistent with rdf:type, rdfs:label
> etc.
>
> And don't get me started on hasXY names...
>
> Holger
>
>
> > On 30 Oct 2023, at 4:44 pm, Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Hugh
> >
> >> On 30 Oct 2023, at 15:27, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> 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 <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/
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Hugh
> > +44 7595 334155
> >
> >
>
>