RE: [topbraid-users] Classlevel properties?

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 actually pro

Re: [topbraid-users] Classlevel properties?

sers@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 the ISO 15

Re: [topbraid-users] Classlevel properties?

Hi Michel, Just remembered that the ISO 15926-12 ontology is available online, in case you would like to compare that with the OPM. https://standards.iso.org/iso/ts/15926/-12/ed-1/en/tech/ontology/ Note that there’s an

Re: [topbraid-users] Classlevel properties?

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

Re: [topbraid-users] Classlevel properties?

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

Re: [topbraid-users] Classlevel properties?

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