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: Ronald P. Reck <rreck@rrecktek.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:42:44 -0500
Message-ID: <4F074EB4.9070408@rrecktek.com>
To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
I agree that with


>> 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.
>>

I believe it is a sane and respectful approach that does not promote 
factionalism.




On 01/06/2012 11:00 AM, Government Linked Data Working Group Issue 
Tracker 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
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 19:42:50 UTC

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