 |
 |
Hiya, > Is it okay to just use the classes I need or should I include the super classes which they belong to? I think we also need to define a few concepts here. What do you mean, "include"? As far as I can tell, you want to say something like "Here's a few concepts we're using, and their definition is based off this other ontology over *there* (pointing)", but that's not always the case, so just asking. Now, Karen is of course right in her take on it, but there's a little thing that require a bit of focus, and that's how this new ontology is going to be used. Is it one of these manual labour things where it doesn't actually require formal definitions as much as a human one, or is it (however you use the ontology) to be passed through a tool, or more formally passed through an inferencer? Regards, Alex -- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps --- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ---------------------------------------------- ------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---