> How do you see property graphs as distinct from RDF?

This is the full answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/30167732/2920686

I added an answer in context to the comments on the answer you've linked but didn't add a link from the comments to the answer. Here's that answer:

> (in reply to the comments on this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/30167732 )

> When an owl:inverseOf production rule is defined, the inverse property triple is inferred by the reasoner either when adding or updating the store, or when selecting from the store. This is a "materialized relation"

> Schema.org - an RDFS vocabulary - defines, for example, https://schema.org/isPartOf as the inverse property of hasPart. If both are specified, it's not necessary to run another graph pattern query to traverse a directed relation in the other direction. (:book1 schema:hasPart ?o), (?o schema:isPartOf :book1), (?s schema:hasPart :chapter2)

> It's certainly possible to use RDFS and OWL to describe schema for and within neo4j property graphs; but there's no reasoner to e.g. infer inverse properties or do schema validation.

> Is there any RDF graph that neo4j cannot store? RDF has datatypes and languages for objects: you'd need to reify properties where datatypes and/or languages are specified (and you'd be re-implementing well-defined semantics)

> Can every neo4j graph be represented with RDF? Yes.

> RDF is a representation for graphs for which there are very many store implementations that are optimized for various use cases like insert and query performance.

> Comparing neo4j to a particular triplestore (with reasoning support) might be a more useful comparison given that all neo4j graphs can be expressed as RDF.