[protege-discussion] is-a relationship

[A A]

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.

Auhood


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 lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03