Shouldn't AltR be sub-classing existing terms from other vocbaularies?

[pmcb55]

Referring to the Turtle/OWL for AltR here: Is it really best practice to be adding restrictions, or even a skos:scopeNote meta-data, to an already existing term from another vocabulary - specifically rdfs:Resource (I assume there's a typo there now)? If I load this T-box data into my existing triplestore, then it'll infer that skos:scopeNote applies to all instances of rdfs:Resource I may have already in my dataset, which wouldn't be correct.

Should you not be sub-classing rdfs:Resource and adding your scope-specific restrictions and meta-data to that sub-classed term? E.g., something like:

altr:Resource
    rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource ;
    a owl:Class ;
    rdfs:label "Resource" ;
    skos:definition "The class resource, everything."@en ;
    rdfs:subClassOf [
        a owl:Restriction ;
        owl:onProperty altr:hasRepresentation ;
        owl:allValuesFrom altr:Representation
    ] ;
    dct:source "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource" ;
    skos:scopeNote "In the context of this mode, rdf:Resource instances are
                    used to identify Internet resources, that is items
                    identified by a URI." .

I notice the existing issue here suggests dropping the restriction, but the same issue applies to skos:scopeNode.

And the issue applies to dct:conformsTo and dct:Standard too.

[rob-metalinkage]

check if latest clean ups have resolved this already

[rob-metalinkage]

Will generate PR removing what seems to be redundant description of rdfs:Resource.

[rob-metalinkage]

Agreed 07 Feb @nicholascar to remove