RE: 'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class'

2010-06-16 Thread Michael Schneider
- >From: semantic-web-requ...@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-requ...@w3.org] >On Behalf Of Bob Ferris >Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 1:09 PM >To: Linked Data community >Cc: Semantic Web >Subject: 'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class'

Re: 'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class'

2010-06-16 Thread Toby Inkster
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:37:29 +0200 Bob Ferris wrote: > - if one uses OWL features for modelling an ontology, define the > concepts only with owl:Class, because RDFS systems, wouldn't know how > to handle these features I think most times people use OWL for modelling an ontology, they also tend

Re: 'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class'

2010-06-16 Thread Bob Ferris
dy defined best practice re. using 'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class' type definition for concepts in ontologies? (I've searched at ontologydesignpatterns.org for it, but didn't found something). For example the FOAF ontology uses both types in t

Re: 'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class'

2010-06-16 Thread Antoine Zimmermann
e wrt OWL tools. AZ Le 16/06/2010 12:08, Bob Ferris a écrit : Hi, does anyone know of an already defined best practice re. using 'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class' type definition for concepts in ontologies? (I've searched at ontologydesignpattern

'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class'

2010-06-16 Thread Bob Ferris
Hi, does anyone know of an already defined best practice re. using 'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class' type definition for concepts in ontologies? (I've searched at ontologydesignpatterns.org for it, but didn't found something). For examp