<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:ns0="http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#">
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/status">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">status</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/Document"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/DocumentStatus"/>
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anyURI">http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/</rdfs:isDefinedBy>
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">The publication status of (typically academic) content.</rdfs:comment>
<skos:editorialNote xml:lang="en">We are not defining, using an enumeration, the range of the bibo:status to the defined list of bibo:DocumentStatus. We won't do it because we want people to be able to define new status if needed by some special usecases. Creating such an enumeration would restrict this to happen.</skos:editorialNote>
<ns0:term_status>stable</ns0:term_status>
</owl:ObjectProperty>
</rdf:RDF>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:ns0="http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#">
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/status">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">status</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/Document"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/DocumentStatus"/>
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anyURI">http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/</rdfs:isDefinedBy>
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">The publication status of (typically academic) content.</rdfs:comment>
<skos:editorialNote xml:lang="en">We are not defining, using an enumeration, the range of the bibo:status to the defined list of bibo:DocumentStatus. We won't do it because we want people to be able to define new status if needed by some special usecases. Creating such an enumeration would restrict this to happen.</skos:editorialNote>
<ns0:term_status>stable</ns0:term_status>
</owl:ObjectProperty>
</rdf:RDF>