W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > January 2012

ISSUE-4 (Alien Ranges): Should we define ranges for other people's vocabularies?

From: Government Linked Data Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:00:47 +0000
To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RjCDn-0003Oy-2R@tibor.w3.org>

ISSUE-4 (Alien Ranges): Should we define ranges for other people's vocabularies?

http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/4

Raised by: Phil Archer
On product: 

DCAT defines a range for foaf:primaryTopic of dcat:Dataset. FOAF of course defines no such range restriction.

I asked about this on the Sem Web IG [1]. Jeremy Carrol and David Booth both agreed (mark the date - JJC and David Booth AGREED!) that this is no big deal. If people want to take on board our assertion that foaf:primaryTopic has a range of dcat:Dataset then they can but they don't have to.

It just feels wrong to me, if not downright rude to Dan and Libby? My preference would be just to leave the range as is (owl:Thing).

My preference would be simply to provide a usage note to say that when used with DCAT the expectation is that foaf:primaryTopic will point to a dcat:Dataset but not to actually define a range within the schema.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2011Nov/0150.html
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 16:02:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 June 2013 15:04:56 UTC