Hi Bob!
I would like to note that if you have an ontology given in RDF graph form,
which declares classes exclusively by rdfs:Class, then this ontology will
not be valid in OWL 2 DL (see below for a technical justification). On the
other hand, the OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs [1] offers explicit tr
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
Well, I think we still get the point during a discussion in the #swig
channel. The conclusion is:
- 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
- if not, feel free to include both
I don't think there is an established best practice related to this
topic. Moreover, your choice may depend on your application, use case,
practical needs, etc. However, as far as I can foresee, using both
rdfs:Class and owl:Class is perfectly safe wrt to RDF/RDFS tools and
perfectly safe wrt
