- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:25:57 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Hi Markus, > do you think it makes > sense to keep something like hydra:Class given that they are quite different > from RDFS classes due to hydra:supportedProperty? > It is just that the model is quite different from > RDFS and much closer to the one of most OO programming languages. As such, > it might be worth to give it a name. Could you elaborate a bit on the above? How are the models different? (And to what extent is it possible/desirable to bend the RDF model?) From the ontology, I had not deduced an impact on supportedProperty (and still doubt that until further notice ;-) Ruben
Received on Friday, 9 January 2015 08:26:25 UTC