[protege-discussion] is-a relationship

[Nada Bajnaid]

Thanks Auhood
    Then can I have some SWRL rules with is-a and inffer about it?
 
Regards
Nada

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, A A <auhoodf at gmail.com> wrote:


From: A A <auhoodf at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] is-a relationship
To: "User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor" <protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 8:48 AM




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

_______________________________________________
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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20091110/d3b65ee3/attachment.html>