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 19:19:08 +0100
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Message-Id: <F68833D6-7C4B-48BC-8ED2-65F9ECED0A37@cyganiak.de>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Hi Danny,

On 12 Jun 2011, at 17:57, Danny Ayers wrote:
>> We explicitly know the “expected types” of properties, and I'd like to keep that information in a structured form rather than burying it in prose. As far as I can see, rdfs:range is the closest available term in W3C's data modeling toolkit, and it *is* correct as long as data publishers use the terms with the “expected type.”
> 
> I don't think it is that close to "expected type"

I didn't say it's close to “expected type”. I said that we want to keep the information in a structured form, and that rdfs:range is the closest construct available in the W3C toolkit.

> <#something> :hasColour <#wet> .
> 
> then we get
> 
> <#wet> a :Colour .

If you apply RDFS/OWL reasoning to broken data, you get more broken data. I don't understand why anyone would be surprised by that.

Best,
Richard
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2011 18:19:46 UTC

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