As I was trying to come up with a new version of the "classes as values" document based on all the feedback, it has occurred to me that the solution with rdfs:isDefinedBy is actually no different than the more general solution with annotation properties (2b and 4 in the original document respectively). The only reason the solution with rdfs:isDefinedBy is in OWL DL is because rdfs:isDefinedBy is an annotation property. It has a class as a value anyway. Is there any reason to keep it there? It seems that if you are going to use annotation properties to stay in OWL DL anyway, you might as well not create the additional complexity by introducing an extra level of instances. Any thoughts? NatashaReceived on Saturday, 24 April 2004 17:21:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:11 GMT