Comment 9 for bug 846248

The concept "Person" would be this in raw RDF/OWL (on line 13,400) :

<owl:Class rdf:ID="Person">
    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Agent-NonArtifact"/>
    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#AgentiveIntelligentObject"/>
    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Hominid"/>
    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing"/>
    <rdf:type rdf:resource="#PersonType"/>
    <isaSynonymOf rdf:resource="#HumanBeing"/>
    <isaSynonymOf rdf:resource="#Human"/>
   <ldoce>person</ldoce>
   <wordnet>person</wordnet>
   <wnsense>person1n</wnsense>
   <wordnet>human</wordnet>
   <wnsense>human1n</wnsense>
   <wordnet>human being</wordnet>
   <wnsense>human being1n</wnsense>
   <ldoce>soul</ldoce>
   <wordnet>soul</wordnet>
   <wnsense>soul2n</wnsense>
   <hasSingularForm>person</hasSingularForm>
   <hasPluralForm>people</hasPluralForm>
  </owl:Class>

So, no, the Person concept should be one complex concept. This concept statement should be handled by the Resource class under the Ontology namespace. That class managing queries should be under that namespace as well. Also, that set should produce an object that allows you to query properties in an abstract manner, regardless of the source of information (and hopefully change said information). We might need to implement a Concept class that handles this work, I'll write the outlining of it and upload that to my branch.