I have placed this under 'data about an ontology part', but this can be discussed. I think this is OK if 'part' is interpreted reflexively, as an ontology module is the whole ontology rather than part of it.
I have placed this under 'data about an ontology part', but this can be discussed. I think this is OK if 'part' is interpreted reflexively, as an ontology module is the whole ontology rather than part of it.
This class and it's subclasses are applied to OWL ontologies. Using an rdf:type triple will result in problems with OWL-DL. I propose that dcterms:type is instead used to connect an ontology URI with a class from this hierarchy. The class hierarchy is not disjoint, so multiple assertions can be made about a single ontology.
This class and it's subclasses are applied to OWL ontologies. Using an rdf:type triple will result in problems with OWL-DL. I propose that dcterms:type is instead used to connect an ontology URI with a class from this hierarchy. The class hierarchy is not disjoint, so multiple assertions can be made about a single ontology.