Re: [poe] ODRL Ontology: formal definition and design issues

> using both rdfs:Class and owl:Class as type. defines
> rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf owl:Class .
> My view: rdfs:Class only is sufficient.

Whereas under OWL Full both owl:Class and rdfs:subClassOf are totally equivalent, OWL DL classes are subject to some restrictions that grant that some reasoning processes can be computed. I made the small experiment of implementing your proposal, and my reasoner apparently does not complain and says everything stays within low complexity. I also could not find additional discussions on the web about this, but in any case I'd be cautious. Any other opinion?

GitHub Notification of comment by vroddon
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 5 June 2017 10:06:35 UTC