There are three implict subclass relationships due to the inheritance of the domains for subproperties.
In the table below:
property1 rdfs:subPropertyOf ?property2
property1 rdfs:domain ?domain1.
property2 rdfs:domain ?domain2.
but not ?domain1 rdfs:subClassOf ?domain2.
property1
property2
domain1
domain2
idmp-mprd:isAuthorizedThrough
cmns-pts:undergoes
idmp-mprd:AuthorizedParty
cmns-pts:Undergoer
cmns-org:isMembershipPartyIn
cmns-pts:actsIn
cmns-org:MemberBearingOrganization
cmns-pts:Actor
cmns-org:isOrganizationMember
cmns-pts:undergoes
cmns-org:OrganizationMember
cmns-pts:Undergoer
These facts should be reviewed as we shouldn not keep such subclass links implict: so either add them explicitly, i.e., as triples, or change the property infrastructure.
Note that there is a similar situation with respect to the range inheritance - see the table below:
@mereolog These are all related to property chains, so we would need to make sure that any additions would not violate restrictions in OWL related to complex properties.
There are three implict subclass relationships due to the inheritance of the domains for subproperties.
In the table below:
These facts should be reviewed as we shouldn not keep such subclass links implict: so either add them explicitly, i.e., as triples, or change the property infrastructure.
Note that there is a similar situation with respect to the range inheritance - see the table below: