Yes, I agree. It is also important to understand the use cases to be supported
by this model and how exactly you will implement them.
For example:
Why have Height as a class to begin with - if these resources will not carry
any properties, could they be just literals? The statement regarding
What is your concern about OWL?
When you say that prefUnit for a class is ‘m’, from either RDF or OWL
perspective, you are not saying anything about the class members. You are
saying something about the class itself as a resource, not about a set of
resources that comprise it.
If you mean it
Someone proposed the following pattern:
ex:Height rdf:type owlClass ;
rdfs:subClassOf opm:Property ;
prefUnit "m" ;
quantityKind cdt:length .
Seems turtlewise ok.
Seems rdfwise ok. Guess same as rdfwise
Seems owlwise not ok...giving properties other than annotation properties to a
class.
