- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:15:34 +0100
- To: Dietrich Schulten <ds@escalon.de>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
HI Dietrich, [From issue text:] >> Isn't that part of ontological modelling, and thus part of the property? > I do not think the ontological model of a property covers it. Perhaps not all cases, but I think for many. > On the one hand, sometimes not all possible values are predefined, but they may be extensible by individuals from other vocabs, see the usage of goodrelations enums from schema.org. In that case, you might have a more specific property. (But I realize this modeling-based solution is not for everybody.) > If you think rdfs:range, it is not about value constraints but inference, so it doesn't enumerate possible values at all (I've learned that much by now). Or do you have something else in mind? OWL does it. I understand most people don't want to go that “complex” (even though it's quite alright), but we should just be aware that a modeling-based solution also exists. For example: foaf:knows has a range of foaf:Person. If we're developing a social application, it might make sense to restrict this to only people on the network. Yet listing them exhaustively would probably not make sense. So then perhaps a ex:knows (subproperty of foaf:knows) where the range is “people from the network” makes sense. Best, Ruben
Received on Monday, 5 January 2015 10:16:07 UTC