- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 19:19:08 +0100
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Hi Danny, On 12 Jun 2011, at 17:57, Danny Ayers wrote: >> We explicitly know the “expected types” of properties, and I'd like to keep that information in a structured form rather than burying it in prose. As far as I can see, rdfs:range is the closest available term in W3C's data modeling toolkit, and it *is* correct as long as data publishers use the terms with the “expected type.” > > I don't think it is that close to "expected type" I didn't say it's close to “expected type”. I said that we want to keep the information in a structured form, and that rdfs:range is the closest construct available in the W3C toolkit. > <#something> :hasColour <#wet> . > > then we get > > <#wet> a :Colour . If you apply RDFS/OWL reasoning to broken data, you get more broken data. I don't understand why anyone would be surprised by that. Best, Richard
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2011 18:19:46 UTC