-
>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'
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
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
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
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