<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:obo_purl="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<owl:NamedIndividual rdf:about="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000410">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">universal</rdfs:label>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000116 xml:lang="en">Hard to give a definition for. Intuitively a "natural kind" rather than a collection of any old things, which a class is able to be, formally. At the meta level, universals are defined as positives, are disjoint with their siblings, have single asserted parents.</obo_purl:IAO_0000116>
</owl:NamedIndividual>
</rdf:RDF>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:obo_purl="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<owl:NamedIndividual rdf:about="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000410">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">universal</rdfs:label>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000116 xml:lang="en">Hard to give a definition for. Intuitively a "natural kind" rather than a collection of any old things, which a class is able to be, formally. At the meta level, universals are defined as positives, are disjoint with their siblings, have single asserted parents.</obo_purl:IAO_0000116>
</owl:NamedIndividual>
</rdf:RDF>