# Interpretation of defined classes

**URL:** <https://community.stardog.com/t/interpretation-of-defined-classes/473>\
**Category:** Support\
**Created:** [July 20, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://community.stardog.com/t/interpretation-of-defined-classes/473 "2017-07-20T15:15:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bgibaud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aca169/32.png) [@bgibaud](https://community.stardog.com/u/bgibaud)\
**Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://community.stardog.com/t/interpretation-of-defined-classes/473/1 "2017-07-20T15:15:14Z")

</div>

If a defined class, e.g. ‘human actor’, is defined in the ‘Equivalent to’ box of Protégé as ‘role  
and (‘inheres in at all times’ some human)’, is it normal that this entity is not classified as a subclass of ‘role’ in the Stardog hierarchy ?  
Thanks

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![zachary.whitley](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/community.stardog.com/zachary.whitley/32/94_2.png) [@zachary.whitley](https://community.stardog.com/u/zachary.whitley)\
**Post date:** [July 20, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://community.stardog.com/t/interpretation-of-defined-classes/473/2 "2017-07-20T16:39:53Z")

</div>

I believe that Stardog only lists the strict subtypes and that might be what is causing the result you’re seeing but I’m not positive so don’t quote me on that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/stardog/original/2X/e/ed66b48a616f505106a4acde3c9cee7e6da9bc67.svg) [@system](https://community.stardog.com/u/system)\
**Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 4:47pm UTC](https://community.stardog.com/t/interpretation-of-defined-classes/473/3 "2017-08-03T16:47:50Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.