Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-discussion] is-a relationship
auhoodf at gmail.com
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?
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
More information about the protege-discussion