- From: Maali, Fadi <fadi.maali@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 16:09:36 -0000
- To: "Government Linked Data Working Group WG" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
I agree with Phil. I added the range definition before, but after a second thought now I believe this is better described in the usage note. Regards, Fadi Maali > -----Original Message----- > From: Government Linked Data Working Group Issue Tracker > [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org] > Sent: 06 January 2012 16:01 > To: public-gld-wg@w3.org > Subject: ISSUE-4 (Alien Ranges): Should we define ranges for other > people's vocabularies? > > > ISSUE-4 (Alien Ranges): Should we define ranges for other people's > vocabularies? > > http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/4 > > Raised by: Phil Archer > On product: > > DCAT defines a range for foaf:primaryTopic of dcat:Dataset. FOAF of > course defines no such range restriction. > > I asked about this on the Sem Web IG [1]. Jeremy Carrol and David Booth > both agreed (mark the date - JJC and David Booth AGREED!) that this is > no big deal. If people want to take on board our assertion that > foaf:primaryTopic has a range of dcat:Dataset then they can but they > don't have to. > > It just feels wrong to me, if not downright rude to Dan and Libby? My > preference would be just to leave the range as is (owl:Thing). > > My preference would be simply to provide a usage note to say that when > used with DCAT the expectation is that foaf:primaryTopic will point to > a dcat:Dataset but not to actually define a range within the schema. > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2011Nov/0150.html > >
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 16:10:05 UTC