Re: schema.org as it could be

Mike:
You are right. I should have said instead that I consider the design choice to allow text as a value even if a typed entity is expected clearly a feature and not a bug in schema.org, since a Web vocabulary must empower site owners to expose as much data structure and data semantics as they can with the available resources and incentives, and simply raising the bar of consistency does not necessarily improve the state of affairs.

That having said, it is clearly a good thing to achieve as much consistency in the schema.org specification as possible without conflicting with the first goal.

Martin

PS: We will very drop the OWL DL requirement in GoodRelations with the next service release, rendering it OWL Full (and thus practically dropping OWL reasoning support) to allow for exactly such modeling practices.

On Jan 7, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Mike Bergman wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> 
> Let's not revisit the tiresome RDF v OWL wars in this forum.
> 
> I think schema.org should applaud looking at how greater consistency could be brought to its foundations. As a key contributor, I would hope you could help Peter in his interests to do so. Surely, there is common ground here that can help all potential users and consumers of schema.org.
> 
> Mike

--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=================================================================
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/

Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 16:47:50 UTC