- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:08:28 -0800
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
1) schema.org does use the concepts of domains and ranges, extensively, but it defines them more loosely than RDFS. They are fundamental to schema.org 2) are you assuming that your data is closed-world only? If it is not, are there implications to this use of rdfs:Class in the open world? kc On 2/13/15 6:35 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: >> >> -----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----- > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 15:08:56 UTC