Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

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