Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

On 06/12/2011 08:19 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 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.

Hi,
Why not make a new property for such loose semantics (and make
rdfs:range subproperty of it)?
Surely we didn't go out of way to have great flexibility, compared to
controlled vocabularies, for nothing...

>> <#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.

I am surprised someone wants to publish broken data.

Best,
Jiri