Dear Christoph,

On 1 April 2011 15:05, Christoph Helma <helma at in-silico.ch> wrote:

> Dear Nina, All,
>
> 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.

Best regards,
Nina


>
> If no: What is the difference between ot:isA and rdf:type, and when
> should we choose one over the other.
>




>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Christoph
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at opentox.org
> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>