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

I agree with Phil. I added the range definition before, but after a second thought now I believe this is better described in the usage note.

Regards,
Fadi Maali

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Government Linked Data Working Group Issue Tracker
> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Sent: 06 January 2012 16:01
> To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-4 (Alien Ranges): Should we define ranges for other
> people's vocabularies?
> 
> 
> 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 16:10:05 UTC