- From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 14:24:04 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@dr-shorthair I tried to find some more information on UML-OWL - folks have written about it but naturally (:-() the best stuff is behind a paywall. I think that one could offer the UML to readers as a conceptual model. It could also be input to a SHACL or ShEx representation that implements the required constraints. My concern is that while an OO approach may require an abstract class (Representation) that is not the case in RDF/OWL. So there's a problem of reconciling the UML with RDF/OWL, and it may not be useful to carry over the abstract class from UML to OWL. As Makx said, you cannot enforce that a class is abstract in RDF. You could do so in SHACL or ShEx, but in OWL the class serves no functional purpose that I can see. Somewhere above (here or another thread?) I believe Nick offered that it's fine that Distribution default to being a subclass of owl:Thing. I agree with that. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/317#issuecomment-418386291 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2018 14:25:05 UTC