I like to define a new OWL vocabulary that describes the concept musicians. Therefore I want to define:
Everyone is arguing that it should be
, but the reason for defining the other way around is that I want to use a set of currently defined instances of foaf:Person without converting it to instances of new:Musicians.
Actually what I want to say is that instances of foaf:Agent can be also instances of new:Musicians. Is the described way correctly or is there any other pattern for this?
asked 25 Nov '11, 18:55
I think you may be over complicating things slightly.
...here you claim that all agents are musicians.
...here you claim that all musicians are agents. (To me, this seems to make more sense.)
You don't have to "convert" instances, but just type them twice. Type the persons that are musicians as
To say that instances of
...so just don't say that, and you'll be fine.
Some other minor notes (some of these would be serious errors if replicated in your vocabulary):
In summary, (if not re-using the Music Ontology) I think you want:
answered 25 Nov '11, 21:43