- From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:19:15 -0700
- To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>>> :AfricanLion >>> a :Animal; >>> rdfs:subClassOf :Lion . >>> >>> :Animal >>> a owl:Class; >>> rdfs:subClassOf :Class . > >> I am not sure what :Class is. > > Sorry, this should be owl:Class. If I am not mistaken this makes the > AfricanLion both an individual *and* a class, which would address the > issue you outline below. AfricanLion will also be a subclass of owl:Class, which will mean that all its instances are classes. In most applications, this is probably not what you want. >>> :LionsLifeInThePrideBook >>> owl:sameAs <http://isbn.nu/0736809643> ; >>> >>> rather than >>> >>> :LionsLifeInThePrideBook >>> rdfs:seeAlso <http://isbn.nu/0736809643> ; > >> I am not sure. I think either solution is correct. I would lean >> towards the seeAlso simply because we don't have enough information >> to say that the resources are equivalent (by using owl:sameAs) > > I agree that rdfs:seeAlso is always a safe choice, though I would > argue that in this particular case we could dare provide additional > information by stating that the two resources represent the same > thing, rather than simply being related in some unspecified way. I suppose. Although I don't think it makes a real difference in this example. > Incidently, is it correct to assume that if > > "x p a" and "y owl:sameAs x" then "y p a" ? I would assume so, but I'll leave to the OWL gurus. Natasha
Received on Monday, 2 August 2004 20:19:16 UTC