ex:CDK rdfs:subClassOf iso:IAO_0000010 .
This may be overcome by adding the label in the output:
ex:CDK rdfs:subClassOf iao:IAO_0000010 . iao:IAO_000010 rdfs:label "software" .
Another alternative is to make a shadow ontology and define:
custom:Software owl:equivalentClass iao:IAO_0000010 .
And then use in the rest of the serializaton:
ex:CDK rdfs:subClassOf custom:Software .
So, my question here is to what practices are used in current bioinformatics projects to work with OWL versions of the OBO Foundry ontologies? Is the project just hiding all the RDF triples, or are the visible to the user (at some level) and you have the GUI use rdfs:label's instead of URIs? Are there alternative solutions to make serialized RDF using OBO ontologies more human readable?