Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-discussion] is-a relationship
nbajnaid at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 10 23:00:36 PST 2009
Then can I have some SWRL rules with is-a and inffer about it?
--- 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.
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
protege-discussion mailing list
protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-discussion