Re: fundamental issues

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I don't agree with this.  Domain and range may interact with validation;
they do in OWL constraints.

peter


On 02/13/2015 06:35 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> 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:
>> 
> 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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU3hDXAAoJECjN6+QThfjz5X4H/291/bAr/JT98GdJQJ5rZuSj
fbIRs3IWfkERMKLa7hOT2J979zXDsQWWEvjjmRsR9Lb1pSmm8SeHpb798w+B82Yh
qEXfEN0jVkL0vLgdADwMym2bH7OGvJf4gQOK4q9ZVjTOmEopM8EL91m5QrYbdyQd
8CZ41yXDIKD/ZYO2qNdY8H1CgY5EqbKhv0OF4oIXzp/inujDY6q3FkHtsf+4sNla
niIfAca7Cogu2+Nr7TPb/zlbaWjrBfR8k6+r4Qv1aCCFYc4PpQkOOcs9aZuk3ycY
qoloByWHy0EmkMRXNRiNH9j7yLDi45gLDVRowXVPBgdI+n1NQxpoUCXa3COA7to=
=Mnfu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 14:58:06 UTC