[Crm-sig] crm:E55 Type vs. rdfs:class
Dan at cimec.ro
Thu Mar 22 22:19:20 EET 2012
From: "Vladimir Alexiev" <vladimir.alexiev at ontotext.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:46:22 +0200
> > 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 :-)
So if I have a "unit of thought" like "all individuals sharing the property a, except x, y and z", should I consider it
a crm:E55/skos:concept ?
> > 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.
More information about the Crm-sig