- From: Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:00:27 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
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 cases" Víctor 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 > <https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/188#issuecomment-306698676>, or > mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFLs5RIEgNFvhxqwKKUHRVNUQsdUqF7rks5sBkHcgaJpZM4NvcRp>. > -- 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 https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/188#issuecomment-307558226 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 10 June 2017 11:00:34 UTC