[OTDev] ot:isA vs. rdf:type
Christoph Helma helma at in-silico.chMon Apr 4 10:36:06 CEST 2011
- Previous message: [OTDev] OT Structural-Clustering service
- Next message: [OTDev] IDEA's server scheduled maintenance: 2011-04-04T13:30:00Z/2011-04-04T14:30:00Z
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear Nina, > > > > 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. I have replaced ot:isA in the API 1.2 documentation, but not in the RDF documentation (http://opentox.org/search?SearchableText=isA) and in opentox.owl - can you fix it there? Future versions of our services will use (and rely on) rdf:type instead of ot:isA. Best regards, Christoph
- Previous message: [OTDev] OT Structural-Clustering service
- Next message: [OTDev] IDEA's server scheduled maintenance: 2011-04-04T13:30:00Z/2011-04-04T14:30:00Z
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Development mailing list