- From: Peter Svanberg <Peter.Svanberg@tnc.se>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:47:47 +0000
- To: John McCrae <john@mccr.ae>
- CC: "public-bpmlod@w3.org" <public-bpmlod@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 2 October 2015 12:48:21 UTC
Thanks! Hence, either <tbx:definition rdf:datatype="…#XMLLiteral">XML with “<” changed to “<” 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.
Received on Friday, 2 October 2015 12:48:21 UTC