SV: Questions about TBX to RDF handling

Thanks! Hence, either

<tbx:definition rdf:datatype="…#XMLLiteral">XML with “<” changed to  “&lt;” etc.</tbx:definition>

or

<tbx:definition rdf:parseType="Literal">XML as is</tbx:definition>

– correct?

Extra question 1: How should these best practice reports be interpreted? As (a) “Please do it this way, try to use our tbx vocabulary/ontology …” or (b) “Here is some tips on how it could be done, but adjust to your needs and context.”?

Extra question 2: In your file tbx.owl you define both a skos/core#TerminologicalConcept (not present in the SKOS spec.) and (it’s subclass) tbx.owl#TerminologicalConcept, how come?

/Peter Svanberg



Från: johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] För John McCrae
Skickat: den 1 oktober 2015 12:25
Till: Peter Svanberg
Kopia: public-bpmlod@w3.org
Ämne: Re: Questions about TBX to RDF handling

…

Both are correct and equivalent.