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

> using both rdf:Property and owl:ObjectProperty: defines
> rdf:Property rdfs:subClassOf owl:ObjectProperty .
> My view: rdf:Property only is sufficient.

My opinion is that this would not harm, but we would be at risk of underspecifying. 
In two different implementations, I'd rather see either class individuals or literals as the values of my properties. I am in favor of keeping the distinction.

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

Received on Monday, 5 June 2017 10:09:59 UTC