Data Modeling « Jakoblog — Das Weblog von Jakob Voß]]>
RDFS gets complicated in this respect because it allows to treat properties as classes (and classes as properties). Also, because everything has to be a triple, „artificial“ properties that belong the metalanguage of the model are predicates at the same level as every other predicate, e.g., rdf:type or rdfs:subClassOf.
Because of this awkwardness in the RDFS model these properties become elements of the domain to be expressed and can become arguments of other predicates at any time.]]>
„What if Ontology A has defined a “Singer” class and Ontology B defined a “sings” property which refer to the same real-world concept?“
Well, then we simply need an ontological description language where we can map from the property to the class, right? Property X with value x is equivalent to entity A. Can OWL do that? I have no idea. But it’s certainly do-able conceptually.]]>
„Reification“ type approaches seem like ways to make something that had been originally modelled as an ‚attribute‘ _into_ an ‚entity‘ of it’s own. Does that seem so?]]>
so i guess, i wouldn’t go with classes in most cases.]]>