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

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

From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:39:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC1Gg8SP9Wdpfb79huWZR0-Hn53O+5qZHdnNCdEP1DA3dysuFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Government Linked Data Working Group WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
I think Jeremy's response in that thread <http://bit.ly/yNDTXg>
captures the open world reality that we must accept; consumers of the
data will either choose to "believe" you/accept the property
equivalence that you have asserted or they won't.

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Government Linked Data Working Group
Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> 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

John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 16:40:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:34 UTC