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

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:37:29 +0200
Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net> wrote:

> - 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

I think most times people use OWL for modelling an ontology, they also
tend to sprinkle in bits of RDFS (most importantly: rdfs:subPropertyOf,
rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:domain, rdfs:range).

So RDFS reasoning systems should still be able to perform some reasoning
on the OWL ontology, even if they're not able to infer quite as much as
an OWL DL or OWL Full processor.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>

Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 13:19:55 UTC