Re: owl:Thing and RDF

Hi Hans--

I'm probably not the most reliable guide on OWL dialects, and I'm not 
sure I fully understand what you're doing.  However, I don't see the 
need to use owl:Thing explicitly at all.  My understanding is, if you 
create a user-defined OWL class, e.g.,

<owl:Class rdf:ID="UserDefinedClass"/>

or as a triple

ex:UserDefinedClass rdf:type owl:Class  .

then UserDefinedClass is implicitly a subclass of owl:Thing;  you need 
not say anything else.  Then, if you create an instance myInstance and 
type it as a member of that OWL class, e.g.,

ex:myInstance rdf:type ex:UserDefinedClass  .

then myInstance is implicitly an instance of owl:Thing.  This is true in 
any of the OWL dialects.

--Frank

Hans Teijgeler wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
>  
> 
> After having defined all owl:Classes in OWL Full I am now confronted 
> with the question whether I should represent all individuals either:
> 
> -         with owl:Thing and rdf:type them with the applicable OWL 
> Classes, or:
> 
> -         in the RDF style, and rdf:type them with the applicable OWL 
> Classes
> 
> Can you shed some light on this? Are there advantages/disadvantages, or 
> does it not matter?
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hans
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________
> 
> Hans Teijgeler
> 
> ISO 15926 specialist
> 
> www.InfowebML.ws <http://www.InfowebML.ws>
> 
> hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl <mailto:hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
> 
> _phone +31-72-509 2005__      _
> 
>  
>

Received on Thursday, 27 October 2005 16:55:46 UTC