Subrelation of

Will this be implemented?--JorisGillis 21:28, 21 December 2005 (CET)
 * Yes, SMW 1.0 has the special property Property:Subproperty of -- Skierpage 10:34, 8 March 2008 (CET)


 * I'm not sure what a subrelation should state. Maybe you can give use some examples to express where u need it. Take also a look at OWL, witch might solve the case you want to express very likely.
 * Also, if you want to ask for Implementation, you might be better to state you're Question within the Semantic Wiki mailing list. This wiki is not daily controlled by the development team.
 * MovGP0 00:11, 22 December 2005 (CET)

With the relation is subrelation of, I understand the following: The relation is a brother of is a subrelation of is a sibling of, which - in itself - is a subrelation of is a family member of. My question was if the extension would understand this.

Something more experimental: if person A is a brother of person B. And person B is parented by person C, would the semantic search engine than conclude that person A is parented by person C? What about the inverse relation? If person C is a parent of person B and person A, person A and B would be siblings of each other. (Please stop me if I'm reinventing the weel - I know very little about RDF and OWL) --Joris Gillis 10:16, 22 December 2005 (CET)


 * Then Implementation is quite easy:
 * (Relation:is subrelation of, Relation:is a, Relation:is a)
 * The 'more experimental' thing is not expressable direclty in RDF, but solveable using OWL - even it's a bit tricky. In you're case Relation:is brother of gets a owl:SymmetricProperty. And the Parent-Child Relation is expressed with:
 * (Relation:is parent of, owl:inverseOf, Relation:is child of)
 * MovGP0 11:37, 22 December 2005 (CET)

Could you demonstrate that? I created some related pages.--Joris Gillis 12:18, 22 December 2005 (CET)


 * Done. But as you can see, there is currently no support for solve this in the meaning of semantic reasoning by this wiki. Also note the rdfs:domain and rdfs:range, witch restricts the use of Relations.
 * There is in my opinion also a little mistake in the expression
 * (Relation:is parented by, is subrelation of, Relation:is family member of)
 * That's because a person can't be a family. Instead a person can be a member of a family (even if its just one). If (Person A, Relation:is member of, Family X) and (Person B, Relation:is member of, Family X), then there are in the same Family.
 * I'm currently not sure about how to express this correctly right now, but I'm sure there is a better solution.
 * MovGP0 17:47, 22 December 2005 (CET)