Search Mailing List Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] is-a relationship

A A auhoodf at
Tue Nov 10 06:48:23 PST 2009

I think the is-a relation is defined as a subclass relation  
implicitly. so you don't need to define it again.
you can see the results when reasoning, e.g. if you write a query that  
finds all individuals of type persons  you should be able to get all  
females as well as all individuals defined as persons.


On 10 Nov 2009, at 12:26, Nada Bajnaid wrote:

> where could I read more about is-a relationship. if I have female  
> subclass of person then we have female is-a person. Do I need to  
> define object property and name it is-a or its already defined by  
> the subclass relationship? and how I could use it in the reasoning?
> Thanks
> Nada
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at
> Instructions for unsubscribing:

More information about the protege-discussion mailing list