- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:38:32 +0200
- To: Tim rdf <timrdf@gmail.com>
- CC: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>, public-lod@w3.org, public-semweb-ui@w3.org
On 26/6/09 18:22, Tim rdf wrote: > [1] http://www.ifs.univie.ac.at/schandl/2009/06/domain+range_bad.png > > is indicating that > > foaf:holdsAccount rdfs:domain foaf:Agent; rdfs:range foaf:OnlineAccount . > > Is constraining a property with BOTH a domain and range a good design > pattern? It seems rather short-sighted with respect to reuse and extension. It depends a lot on what you're trying to express. In this FOAF case, the classes at either end still have some vagueness. We say only that an Agent is something that does something. And regarding OnlineAccount (which is superclass of sioc:User in SIOC) there are some different styles for identifying them with URIs: some use URIs of the pages associated with those accounts. Given that the classes linked here are already pretty broad and "settling down" into a deployment practice, the domain/range constraints still leave some flexibility and room for practice to evolve. Dan
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 17:39:15 UTC