> 2. individualOf vs. type > a. subject isu object > iff subject has individualOf = object > subject must be an individual > b. subject has type = object > subject can be any individual or any subClass of object Are you sure that is the correct definition of rdf:type? My understanding was that rdf:type was as you have expressed your proposed owl:individualOf here. > 3. definitionOf expressed in triples > I have not made any specific proposal for representing this "quad" in > triples. Since you are proposing it be used with a triple-based language, it might be an idea to do so.Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 07:09:18 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC