W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 19:12:59 +0100
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Message-Id: <026E3792-F0F8-42D0-A18A-FEEE37B09D89@cyganiak.de>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On 12 Jun 2011, at 18:34, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> What do we say when the range of a property is supposed to be, say, people, but its considered OK to insert a string to stand in place of the person?
>> Well, I can define a class that contains both people (in the foaf:Person sense) and names of people (that is, string literals).
> Of course. But you didn't, did you? You (that is, Schema.org) said that the range of the property was one of these and NOT the other. Which is what I was complaining about.

Where is it said that the range is one and not the other?

Citing from the schema.rdfs.org FAQ [1], which has the same answer I gave earlier here in the thread:

>> Q: Schema.org documentation explicitly say that you can use a text instead of a Thing/Person/other type, why is this not reflected in the RDFS?

>> A: That's okwe didn't say that schema:Thing is disjoint from literals, so you can use a string when the declared range is schema:Person. (We were tempted to add xsd:string rdfs:subClassOf schema:Thing. to capture this bit of the schema.org documentation, but narrowly decided against it.)

So I think it's all ok.


[1] http://schema.rdfs.org/faq.html
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2011 18:13:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:54 UTC