Re: fundamental issues

I think we agree. They don't contribute anything to validation, but if people want to use them that is OK. From the data definition/data validation perspective they will be ignored. 

Irene

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 13, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> I don't see that this is any reason to not let people who want domain and
> range to use domain and range.  If some people don't want domain and range
> then the solution for them is simple - they don't need to use domain and range.
> 
> peter
> 
> 
>> On 02/13/2015 02:18 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
>> The reason to exclude domain and range is the same reason why Schema.org
>> excluded them. They don't work in a way that is useful to a community
>> interested in specifying what data should look like.
>> 
>> In addition to not being useful, they also create problems by
>> intersecting multiple ranges and domains, etc. They are often misused.
>> 
>> So, one could call this RDFS- data. I don't think domains and ranges must
>> be prohibited though, they could just be ignored.
>> 
>> Irene
>> 
>>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 10:08 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I suppose that the working group could exclude rdfs:domain and
>> rdfs:range from the RDF graphs that it considers to be acceptable, just
>> as OWL DL excluded certain RDF graphs.  For OWL DL that was to achieve
>> decidability and I don't see an equivalent need here.
>> 
>> peter
>> 
>> 
>>>>>> On 02/12/2015 04:03 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/13/2015 8:19, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: Is the working
>>>>>> group producing a solution tailored for RDF data, where RDF
>>>>>> graphs and rdf:type are important; for RDFS data, where 
>>>>>> rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:subPropertyOf, rdfs:domain, and rdfs:range
>>>>>> are also important; for Linked Data, where dereferencing and
>>>>>> interlinking is important; or for services data, where brevity
>>>>>> may be important?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Shapes and Classes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Are shapes RDF classes, i.e., should shapes be the object of
>>>>>> rdf:tyoe triples, participate in rdfs:subClassOf relationships,
>>>>>> and be the object of rdfs:domain and rdfs:range triples?
>>>>> 
>>>>> In both points you seem to assume that if we use rdfs:subClassOf
>>>>> then we also must use rdfs:domain and rdfs:range. Could you
>>>>> clarify? I would assume it is possible to use parts of the RDFS
>>>>> namespace without sucking in all dependencies, assuming we clarify
>>>>> that situation in the beginning of the specification.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks, Holger
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU3ertAAoJECjN6+QThfjz+8cH/3lpq+zfMg09M01sCRIlDqi1
> nslsOObD4ukEuioL/f9GQ1/OZvcZVw6i09aNugsABbUHfTuFUIxsmGA9+6r1ZM+t
> kVqzewSPhH4GFp5Gcy8x4Y0pAIEBQ62RRYfPNClX38eFx5e/ZJ+xfg5HSjqzpF3r
> xVuW1+i5nge0lUJr4WF/bW/Tj6g69TXUrXet3tNTJ1sddkxqXPo7jBvSE1kZkBTH
> 3UsZr1yokiM6FkbxI1JJ6MIOl1BdvBvwQaiyn38fgMjNSvTTtfvhnp3Mua8Ss4He
> 3hExQ4wUMXw0nU4ob+71dqzvaU1o9hgRlxwgSky4gXOAmD95U84fgpUZuVxDKWs=
> =KorL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 14:35:53 UTC