Thx very much for your consideration. In NL were working on a national
modeling guide in which linking classes <> properties is an important
issue (typically difficult/different for many involved since it
differs from tradiotional modeling approaches).
In my *personal* opinion you may also chose to simply ignore the
official RDFS semantics and apply the intuitive and mainstream
interpretation of rdfs:domain as a way to "attach" a property to a
class, rdfs:range to restrict the values and rdfs:subClassOf as
inheritance. While officially this is not entirely correct, it will most
likely have no negative side effects to start with that
(object-oriented) point of view for your ontologies. After more than ten
years of semantic technology standards, the official formal semantics
have not become widely used and in my *personal* opinion this is never
going to change either. See the increasing popularity of JSON-LD and
"simple" ontologies like schema.org to see where this is going.
Holger
--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary
Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL
Web Pages and SPIN.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
