1

In the food ontology http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/food#, I am seeing this way of representing classes and individuals:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="RedMeat">
  <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Meat"/></owl:Class>
<SweetDessert rdf:ID="Cake"/>
<SweetFruit rdf:ID="Bananas"/>
<SweetFruit rdf:ID="MixedFruit"/>

For the individuals "Cake", "Bananas" and "MixedFruit", why doesn't it use:

<OWL:NamedIndividual>
</OWL:NamedIndividual>

Is that because the food ontology is represented in old syntax?

unor
  • 92,415
  • 26
  • 211
  • 360
user697911
  • 10,043
  • 25
  • 95
  • 169
  • 1
    There are multiple ways how to serialize OWL in RDF/XML syntax. Moreover, some documents are serialized using already OWL 2 elements although both indeed are semantically equivalent. So the answer is, it doesn't matter. RDF/XML Syntax for OWL is online, that's important for any parser. – UninformedUser Dec 28 '17 at 04:41
  • Thank you, AKSW. – user697911 Dec 28 '17 at 16:57
  • @AKSW: Sounds like an answer :) – unor Dec 29 '17 at 11:31

0 Answers0