- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 01:10:00 +0200
- To: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Cc: Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list <public-locadd@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: > On 2014-09-08 4:00, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: >> >> Yes, I would suggest >> >> locn:crs a owl:ObjectProperty ; >> rdfs:label “coordinate reference system used” ; >> rdfs:range locn:CRS . >> >> locn:CRS a owl:Class ; >> rdfs:label “coordinate reference system” . >> >> Then in data when you see >> >> my:Thing locn:crs <http://example.org/c> . >> >> a reasoner will tell you that the resource denoted <http://example.org/c> is >> a member of the class denoted locn:CRS. >> >> The inference stands regardless of whether an RDF representation can be >> obtained or not (in the open-world we can assume/hope one is available >> somewhere, even if we don’t know where, yet!). > > > Hello Simon, all, > > I really like this approach. It is very similar to the way geometry is > handled in LOCN now: There is a class locn:Geometry that can be used for any > definition of geometry and there is a property locn:geometry to make an > association with an instance of locn:Geometry. > > If there are no objections I would like to put this in the proposal. But > wouldn't it be better to use rdfs:Class instead of owl:Class and > rdf:Property instead of owl:ObjectProperty? I understand that it is good > practice to stick with RDF/RDFS if possible and only use OWL if there is no > alternative in the simpler schemas. I'm personally in favour of using rdf:Property and rdfs:Class, as done for locn:geometry and locn:Geometry. Andrea
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 23:10:42 UTC