W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2010

Re: 'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class'

From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:37:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4C18C589.30702@elbklang.net>
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Well, I think we still get the point during a discussion in the #swig 
channel. The conclusion is:

- if one uses OWL features for modelling an ontology, define the 
concepts only with owl:Class, because RDFS systems, wouldn't know how to 
handle these features
- if not, feel free to include both types

I think, the first case is more common in modern ontology modelling, 
because it is more powerful/ one could express more.



Am 16.06.2010 13:40, schrieb Antoine Zimmermann:
> I don't think there is an established best practice related to this
> topic.  Moreover, your choice may depend on your application, use case,
> practical needs, etc. However, as far as I can foresee, using both
> rdfs:Class and owl:Class is perfectly safe wrt to RDF/RDFS tools and
> perfectly safe wrt OWL tools.
> AZ
> Le 16/06/2010 12:08, Bob Ferris a écrit :
>> Hi,
>> does anyone know of an already defined best practice re. using
>> 'owl:Class and rdfs:Class' vs. 'owl:Class or rdfs:Class' type definition
>> for concepts in ontologies? (I've searched at ontologydesignpatterns.org
>> for it, but didn't found something).
>> For example the FOAF ontology uses both types in their ontology
>> definition [1] (for better reading ;) ). However, I think this depends
>> on the evolution of the FOAF ontology, that means it was first defined
>> only by using rdfs:Class and owl:Class was added later. On the other
>> side, for example the Music Ontology [2] uses only owl:Class for its
>> concept definitions (which was design some year later).
>> The reason for supporting both is that RDFS only systems are then also
>> able to process semantic graphs from ontologies with rdfs:Class typed
>> concepts.
>> On the other side, modern SPARQL engines, such as this one from the
>> Virtuoso Server [3], are able to handle transitivity - a feature, which
>> is very important re. ontologies (I think).
>> Cheers,
>> Bob
>> [1] http://www1.inf.tu-dresden.de/~s9736463/ontologies/FOAF_-_20100101.n3
>> [2] http://motools.sourceforge.net/doc/musicontology.n3
>> [3] http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/features-comparison-matrix/
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 12:38:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:18 UTC