- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:14:41 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, "<public-owl-dev@w3.org>" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
[snip] Just a quick comment: one reason for schema.org's seeming woolly-ness regarding type/property associations is that the entire (1200+ term) structure is being gradually evolved as new use cases and vocabulary proposals are developed. Rather than e.g. on monday saying "author has range Person" and then on tuesday refining that to say "well actually we meant to say author has range Agent which has subtypes Person, Organization", the approach is more like saying "author kinda-goes-with Person", where kinda-goes-with (aka http://schema.org/rangeIncludes) doesn't let you conclude much. Otherwise parties who believed you on monday when you said that authors are always people will be disappointed and confused to find a tuesday-based description in which something is said to be written by an Organization. You might reasonably respond that it would be better to get the basic modeling right in the first place rather than make it up as you go along, and in practice much of the schema now isn't changing much so it could feasibly be documented more tidily and marked as unlikely-to-change. But that was the basic thinking: things were changing a lot, and we didn't want to bloat out the documentation of an already large structure with additional 'modeling artifact' types that were not expected to be used in actual instance data... Dan
Received on Monday, 5 January 2015 09:15:10 UTC