-----Original Message-----
From: "Vladimir Alexiev" <[email protected]>
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:46:22 +0200
>
> > 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 :-)
So if I have a "unit of thought" like "all individuals sharing the property a,
except x, y and z", should I consider it
a crm:E55/skos:concept ?
> > 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.
OK.
Dan
