[Crm-sig] crm:E55 Type vs. rdfs:class

Vladimir Alexiev vladimir.alexiev at ontotext.com
Thu Mar 22 08:46:22 EET 2012

Hi Dan!

> Beside E55 Type, I need something like rdfs:class, because I'm not comfortable using
> Type for "conceptual objects" like UDC classes, e.g. 111.85

Why not? The name "type" is just a convention, the scope note is the authoritative definition.
Types are exactly intended to represent nomenclatures, be flat or relational.
It's usual to equate crm:E55_Type and skos:Concept, so there's the name that you like :-)

> make rdfs:class a subclass of E28 Conceptual Object.

rdfs:Class has strong operational semantics under RDFS and more so under OWL.
So your subclassing would bring about a bunch of implications. 
If you're not certain what these implications are, don't do that.

PS: congratulations about your Europeana book!

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list