[OTDev] ot:isA vs. rdf:type
Nina Jeliazkova jeliazkova.nina at gmail.comFri Apr 1 14:13:16 CEST 2011
- Previous message: [OTDev] ot:isA vs. rdf:type
- Next message: [OTDev] ot:isA vs. rdf:type
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear Christoph, On 1 April 2011 15:05, Christoph Helma <helma at in-silico.ch> wrote: > Dear Nina, All, > > Up to now, we have been using ot:isA in the metadata to characterize > models, features, algorithms etc and rdf:type to assign OpenTox classes. > Ambit seems to use only rdf:type (at least in Features) and I have the > impression that ot:isA is redundant to rdf:type. Is that true? > Yes, rdf:type has meaning of "is a a type of <certain class> indeed and is a standard construct, contrary to OT- specific property isA. > > If yes: Can we remove ot:isA from the API (I did not check if it is still > there) and deprecate ot:isA? > Yes, I have indeed suggested this some time ago to the list and wiki, that ot:isA should be replaced by the standard RDF construct of subclassing. So far I think TUM had also started using rdf:type instead of ot:isA. Let's have ot:isA officially deprecated. Best regards, Nina > > If no: What is the difference between ot:isA and rdf:type, and when > should we choose one over the other. > > > Thanks and best regards, > Christoph > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development at opentox.org > http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development >
- Previous message: [OTDev] ot:isA vs. rdf:type
- Next message: [OTDev] ot:isA vs. rdf:type
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Development mailing list