To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] Classlevel properties?
On 6 Mar 2019, at 12:32, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
Hi David,
Thx and fully agree the wkt-issue!
In att. I actua
topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of dprice
> Sent: woensdag 6 maart 2019 12:35
> To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] Classlevel properties?
>
> Hi Michel,
>
> Just remembered that
michel.bo...@tno.nl]
> Subject: Re: FW: [topbraid-users] Classlevel properties?
>
> Hi David, Irene, Richard
>
> FWIW saying “owl-wise not ok” is inaccurate. To be accurate you need to say
> "OWL DL (aka Direct Semantics)-wise not ok”. OWL Full (aka RDF-based
> Semantics
Verzonden van mijn Android-telefoon via TouchDown (www.symantec.com)
-Original Message-
From: Michel Böhms [michel.bo...@gmail.com]
Received: zondag, 03 mrt. 2019, 11:55
To: Bohms, H.M. (Michel) [michel.bo...@tno.nl]
Subject: Re: FW: [topbraid-users] Classlevel properties?
Hi David
FWIW saying “owl-wise not ok” is inaccurate. To be accurate you need to say
"OWL DL (aka Direct Semantics)-wise not ok”. OWL Full (aka RDF-based Semantics)
does not mind.
If the intent is that a property like Height is a class (e.g. “2 metre” is the
class with members being all things that are
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 th
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
Are you in an environment that prescribes OWL DL?
If not, then stop working with one hand tied behind your back!
If you indeed must stick to OWL DL, I have nothing to offer but my heartfelt
sympathy!
Richard
> On 27 Feb 2019, at 09:05, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
> wrot
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.
Cou
