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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:04:34 GMT