RDFS vs OWL

[VladimirAlexiev]

https://semiceu.github.io/style-guide/1.0.0/gc-semantic-conventions.html

I find R1 and R2 kind of contradictory. - one says no RDFS but OWL2,

• the other says cut down OWL2 to RDFS minus domain/range (and add Object vs Datatype properties)

Furthermore, RDFS is a subset of OWL2. So I think these 2 rules should not put RDFS and OWL in opposition, but simply enumerate the RDFS and OWL constructs recommended for use

[csnyulas]

I don't think the two rules are contradictory, but indeed the formulation of SC-R1 is not perfectly clear, and it might give the impression that there is a contradiction. I think a simple change to the last sentence of the description of [SC-R1] would clear things up. I would recommend changing:

"We recommend using only a limited set of expression types available in OWL 2 language [SC-R2]."
to
"We recommend using the OWL 2 language, but limited only to a small subset of expression types (see [SC-R2])."

BTW, the [SC-R2] already addresses the suggestion of providing a clear list of the recommended RDFS and OWL constructs to be used

[VladimirAlexiev]

Now it's better, but please change SC-R1 to "The formal ontology shall be expressed in RDFS and OWL 2."
Your own example in the same rule uses RDFS:

<http://www.w3.org/ns/person#Person> a rdfs:Class;
  rdfs:label "Person"@en .

While rdfs:label has no alternative on OWL, rdfs:Class has an alternative, so your own example is non-compliant with the rule as currently stated.