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

I fully agree with Antoine about "

My advice would be to type the classes using both rdfs:Class and
owl:Class and to try to keep things within OWL 2 DL because in most

El 07/06/2017 8:23, Michael Steidl escribió:
> Re rdfs:Class vs owl:Class
> The not so nice statements by Antoine in the email were:
> "OWL is a very complicated beast" and
> "Warning: the explanations below are pretty long and detailed and 
> brain damaging."
> My conclusion: this group should have a focus on well formulated and 
> correct free-text specifications, a thing like the OWL ontology could 
> help experts but can't tell the story about ODRL to newbies.
> —
> You are receiving this because you were assigned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
> <>, or 
> mute the thread 
> <>.

Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3672
Skype: vroddon3

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

Received on Saturday, 10 June 2017 11:00:34 UTC