Hi Dan! > Beside E55 Type, I need something like rdfs:class, because I'm not > comfortable using > Type for "conceptual objects" like UDC classes, e.g. 111.85
Why not? The name "type" is just a convention, the scope note is the authoritative definition. Types are exactly intended to represent nomenclatures, be flat or relational. It's usual to equate crm:E55_Type and skos:Concept, so there's the name that you like :-) > make rdfs:class a subclass of E28 Conceptual Object. rdfs:Class has strong operational semantics under RDFS and more so under OWL. So your subclassing would bring about a bunch of implications. If you're not certain what these implications are, don't do that. PS: congratulations about your Europeana book! http://openlibrary.org/works/OL15370344W/Spre_Europeana.eu
