Re: That restriction lifting example

OK thanks.

I think I'll leave it as it is, which includes this para in the 
Approaches to Implementation section:

You may find a vocabulary that you'd like to use but you notice a 
semantic constraint that makes it difficult to do so, such as a domain 
or range restriction that doesn't apply to your case. In that scenario, 
it's often worth contacting the vocabulary publisher and talking to them 
about it. They may well be able to lift that restriction and provide 
further guidance on how the vocabulary is used more broadly.

So the case is referred to, albeit obliquely.

Phil.

On 27/04/2016 18:12, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> It may be early to quote something. I'm not sure when Hydra-in-the-box
> (that's the project) will roll this out. Also, precisely the situation
> is more complex: what we've removed is a bit of scopeNote on a class and
> one axiom on a property that was expected to be used on any instance of
> the class. I did simplify it for the sake of the discussion yesterday...
>
> But instead of a long talk you can make your main yourself: we've got
> nothing to hide, it's at
> https://github.com/hybox/models/issues/41
>
> cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> On 27/04/16 17:48, Phil Archer wrote:
>> Hi Antoine,
>>
>> Last night you mentioned a real world case where you had removed a
>> range restriction in response to someone. Can we quote that in the BP
>> doc? Something like:
>>
>> <p>A real world example: Europeana's EDM included a restriction on the
>> <code>???</code> property that meant that ??? couldn't use it. ???
>> contacted Europeana who realized that the restriction was unnecessary
>> and removed it. As a direct result of a simple e-mail exchange, ???
>> and Europeana data are now interoperable.</p>
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 17:43:14 UTC