- From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:15:21 +0200
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-lld@w3.org>
Jeff wrote: > > Karen, > > I believe that in OWL, individuals are considered to be part of the > ontology. Here's some wording in the OWL guide: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#SimpleClasses > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#Glossary > > TBox and ABox are the only terms I've come across that make the > distinction. In practice, though, modeler's have the ability to blur > the > line or possibly even switch a term between TBox/ABox as their model > evolves. For example, MARC relator codes are defined as both rdf:type > skos:Concepts (ABox) and rdf:Property (TBox). Doesn' that automatically make it OWL Full? //Lars
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 10:15:49 UTC