anti-pattern: $x$ a $y$, $y$ a $z$, $x$ a $z$ .
possible cause: the “is a” relation (hyponymy) may mean “is an instance of” or “is a kind of” (subclass)
possible correction: $x$ a $y$, $y$ rdf:subClassOf $z$, $x$ a $z$ .
May occur when an entity has a property literal value that must be further described by a property
$x$ $p$ $y$ and $x$ $q$ $z$ instead of $x$ $p$ [:value $y$ ; $b$ $q$ $z$]
Example: a measurement value with its unit
:road1 :width 410. :road1 :unit “cm”.
should be replaced by
:road1 :width [:value 410 ; :unit “cm”]
Although the first representation is not formally wrong, it is not robust. If one wants to add a :length expressed in km, this pattern would lead to
:road1 :width 410 ; :unit “cm” ; :length 4.5 ; :unit “km”
which is clearly wrong because nothing indicates which property is related to which unit. A correct representation would be:
:road1 :width [:value 410 ; :unit “cm”] ; :length [:value 4.5 ; :unit “km”]